I think all stock markets should be burned to ground.

But that's just me.

Flint calls for market regulations? The end of the world is near!

Well, Einstein is now an semi offical politican. Per definition is he a compromiser now. Market regulation is his first step to higher taxes.

I'm going to give a more detailed post later... but until then, could you please flesh out your argument as to why day trading causes prices of stocks to artificially increase?  Remember... a day trader will sell off every stock they purchase within the day, which means if their purchase increases the price of the stock, their subsequent sale of the stock will decrease the stock's price.  What uniquely differentiates the financial market from conventional supply/demand economic theory?

I would also like to build fast computers and secure land lines in 3 African states, and country A would link its currency to the dollar, and Country B would link its currency to the euro, and Country C would link its currency to gold, and I'd trade $10 million between them, six times a second, 24/7/365.   Then I'd use the money to buy low yield nukes, and fill robot subs with them, and tow them to the great oceanic oil fields of the world off Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, and teh Persian Gulf, and hold them ransom to my Tsunami Bombs.

I also would not have sex with a beautiful woman, and if I did, I wouldn't tell her where my HQ was, or give her a necklace with a map of my plan, or let her get within 1000 miles of a casino.  I would hire a temp just to remind me about that.  or maybe take on an intern.  An intern that I didnt' find attractive.

Right-wing Republicans are setting the agenda for massive spending cuts that will hurt most Americans.

Here

The top 20% pay 43% of income taxes.

What?! LMAO where are you getting this number from??

Yell,

That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Imagine a guy $100 in income and a hundred people with $2.00 in income. If the tax rate is 50%, ofc the top earner is going to pay 50% of the taxes! But is that income fair or healthy for the economy? Most certainly not.

One fact check for you. The economy of the 1970s resulted from a supply-shock, not from high taxes on the super rich.

Adrius,

It's unfair to look at wealth by top percentage of income. For example, if you had a population of 1,101 people where:

1 person earns $10,000.00 = $10,000 by class
100 people earn $100 = $10,000 by class
1,000 people earn $10 = 10,000 total by class

Although the total income of that population is $30,000 and each class is responsible for 1/3 of the society's wealth, this society is hardly healthy. Although the second class lives decently and makes 10x as much as the third class, it is foolish to call them "rich." Look at the #1 person who makes 100x as much as they do! He is also the one who exercises the real power and can oppress the second class by hiring members of the other 1,000 as thugs!

But in the US, the top 1% of household income makes $1 million a year, and the 50th percentile of household income is 44,389. For simplicity, we'll say the latter is $50,000. The households earning $1 million a year earn roughly 20x as much as those in the 50th percentile. But a person earning $1 million a year may own a small business employing 10-20 people. That millionaire may also enjoy more power than the average person, but its unlikely to even touch the iceberg of power brokers in Washington D.C. On the other hand, those individuals with real influence on power - those with hundreds of millions and billions in assets - have a lot more than 20x the wealth and income of your small-time millionaire.

So when politicians say "lets tax the rich," I am suspicious that what they really mean is "lets tax the people with 6 figures incomes and small business owners while we eliminate competition for the elite because the tax brackets stop at $357,701! That, and we made tax loopholes that only we and they know about!"

I believe that "the rich" should pay more taxes, but not substantially more. They are also responsible for the majority of employment opportunities, and small companies are ofc more efficient. On the other hand, I have no problem if the tax brackets expand to include members of the elite, and the top bracket pays 80-90% in taxes. It would certainly strike a blow to plutocracy and possibly prevent another one from developing.

"That may be true, but it's irrelevant. Imagine a guy $100 in income and a hundred people with $2.00 in income. If the tax rate is 50%, ofc the top earner is going to pay 50% of the taxes! But is that income fair or healthy for the economy? Most certainly not."

Taxing the crap out of the top is going to limit class mobility.  That's what happened in teh 1970s, and eased in the 1980s and 1990s.

Taxes for the highest bracket were at their highest towards the end of World War II (94% for incomes above $5 million, worth $75 million today). The highest bracket in the 1970s was between 70%-70.75%. Moreover, there used to be many more brackets and they extended in to the elites. Beginning with Reagan, the number of brackets went from 15 (in the 1970s) to 5, and the highest bracket applied to the upper middle class. While the top bracket went up and down, as did the rates, it wasn't until Reagan that it applied to the upper middle class.

In short, the Republican party serve the elite, and this is why class mobility has gone down, evidenced by increasing income inequality. When there were more brackets, the highest bracket was high, and it applied to the elite, there was more social mobility. And I repeat, the 1970s were economically poor because of a supply-shock and Carter's incompetence, and it had nothing to do because the rich were taxed more. In fact, they were taxed less than preceding decades.

> The Yell wrote:

<Nope, those are two separate things and we have less class mobility when there is less income equality.  Income Inequality was BETTER during the Carter Administration, whiich was a time of great suck.
When it costs more and more to go from being a self-employed guy with no employees, to a boss, to a franchisor, then the schmucks who would have started out as clockpunchers are denied the opportunity to get in on a management track.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. The tax system eliminates competition for the elite by preventing people from being self-employed or starting a small business. It happens because the Republicans (Democrats too, but the neo-cons were first) are bought by the elite. This is why Gates and Buffet praise higher taxes on "the rich," when really they mean preventing the professional or small business owner from competing against them, and preventing lower classes from entering the upper middle class or lower rich. It also explains why political donations to politicians have become increasingly generous and overt.

Before, the elite paid more taxes than working professionals or small business owners. Now elites pay the same and ensured that the highest tax rate applied to the upper middle class. And when democrats say "lets tax the rich," they really mean "lets tax professionals and small business owners so the elite enjoy a competitive advantage for the trade of assets and maintain their monopolies."

Again. Taxation under Carter was less than preceding decades. Carter was also incompetent and suffered from an oil-supply shock, which raised prices and left consumers with less disposable income.

Yell,

No duh. But it gives the elite a competitive advantage because someone who pays a tax rate of 25% of 100 million in taxes is harmed less than someone who pays 25% of $100,000. The latter may live better than most, but the tax rate effectively puts them at a disadvantage for buying assets. Thus the elite can readily accumulate wealth while their competition has little disposable income. Thus the elite need to be taxed more, and the upper middle class taxed less. That way assets become broadly distributed and do not concentrate in the hands of the few. That is how you have social mobility. Otherwise you have an aristocratic class, like we do now.

They may say they want a tax hike at the top. But the tax proposals effectively treat small business owners and professionals as "rich." Thus they get taxed the same as the elite.

> The Yell wrote:

There is no way to make $100 million work like $100,000>

Now you are beginning to understand. Although 25% taxes will handicap the investment potential of both individuals, the one earning $100,000 is handicapped more. The reason is that the person earning $100,000 spends a greater percentage of their disposable income on consumer goods, unless the person earning $100 million is frivolous to the extreme. Assuming the person earning $100 million is a frivolous spender, spending $20 million a year, their disposable income for investment would be 55%. For the person earning $100,000, they would have to cut their spending to $20,000 to use 55% of their disposable income on investment. While $20,000 is doable with considerable sacrifices the elite won't need to make, it illustrates just how the current tax system adds to the inherent investment advantages the elite enjoy.

Without a tax system that taxes the elite more, wealth concentrates in the hands of a few. When that happens, Republics evolve in to overt Oligarchies. The highest income earners then use their power to buy politicians to give them additional legal market advantages, and they get away with it. The bottom line is that money is power. If you want power to be broadly distributed (not equally, broadly), then the elite have to be taxed at higher rates.

As a Legal Positivist, I logically reject your claim that such taxation is theft. But for simplicity, I will tell you I don't care if it's "theft" or not. What matters is that there is no Plutocratic Oligarchy, and if "theft" is necessary to prevent such an evil then so be it. The ends justify the means.