[gazpacho]

I would gladly pay 75% taxes if they went to the right thing.

I’d rather be at the mean income wise in a society with low inequality than in the top percentile of a society that has large inequality. I’ve been both.

I can agree that overspending is not a good thing, but I don’t think the solution is cutting out public programs altogether, I think we should focus on making those programs efficient, eg not making them a charity for multinational corporations that are in great part owned by the very states we consider our “enemies”. Maybe we shouldn’t be lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry, big pharma, etc and instead be lining the pockets of the American people with value through education, opportunity, etc.

[pclmulqdq]

What's the right thing? Are you sure that you and I agree on that? Do you and Elon Musk agree? The tax pool is taken from everyone. In practice, I believe you would find a 50% tax distasteful because it's pretty much guaranteed that it's not going to be spent exactly as you direct.

What used to happen before vast income tax regimes and welfare states arose was that people who were wealthy would donate huge amounts of money to charities that did what they thought were the right thing. Even the working class donated 10-20% of their income to charities that did the right thing. The way you guarantee that money is spent on the right thing is by having the power to spend it, which means lower taxes.

[roboror]

What specific time period and location before "vast income tax regimes and welfare states" are you talking about? And who gave money to what?

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Okay campaign on that and let the electorate decide. When you win you can tax all of us at 75% and spend it on "the right thing"