I find it hard to believe that there would be no facebook if Mark Zukcerberg was worth $15B instead of $30B, or no Apple if Steve Jobs had paid a few billion more in taxes. If money is the ultimate goal, then why are so many billionaires joining Bill Gates in giving their fortunes away?

During Eisenhower's time the top tax rate in the US was over 90%. We didn't become the Soviet Union, gravediggers didn't strike and innovation continued. I don't know if a 90% tax rate is necessarily socialist, but it wasn't the end of capitalism either. The idea that higher taxes stifle innovation is unproven and unproductive. If the super rich were willing to pay just 10% more, perhaps the super poor would have the opportunity to hold up their end of the deal as well. This real estate issue and the other symptoms of income inequality could become manageable problems instead of simmering conflicts.

For instance, consider Mark Zuckerberg. By and large, Mr. Zuckerberg will owe his taxes when he decides to cash out. But why should he cash out? An entrepreneur can build a multi-billion-dollar company up from nothing, earn a comfortable salary doing it, and as long as he is reinvesting all of the business's profits and not cashing out, not pay significant taxes!

Corporate person-hood, and corporate taxes don't really make so much sense.. I'd be in favor of limiting corporations, and pushing for disbursements to the owners... Limiting corporations from holding onto unutilized and under-utilized assets and capitol. Make it work, or give it back to the shareholders/owners.

I think that these things could really simplify legal/tax structures, and reduce a lot of government bureaucracy... Some people just wouldn't work.. more power to them. Some people will want more, and there will be competition in the workforce... I'd also be in favor of either open trade, or trade sanctions with countries that don't have similar environmental protection requirements to our own. Yes, that means that smart phones may double in price, but I think actions like that would help a lot more than simply putting up military bases all over the world.

Plus this whole issue of 'companies returning money to shareholders' is again only favoring the rich. It will be a long time before any significant portion of my income comes from dividends and capital gains. To make money in this way, you have to have a huge amount of capital invested already. Just to prove this point, if you made a very nice 10% per year before taxes on your investments, you would have to have 100,000 invested to make an extra 10,000 per year. If you are only making 50,000 per year, that would take a 20% contribution to your pre-tax retirement account for TEN years before you reached that level of invested capital. Sure, it would happen a little faster because of compounded interest and reinvested earnings, but I think my point is clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Flat_tax_wi...

Edited to add: It's worth noting, though, that you can't produce every possible progressive tax rate curve with this method. It's certainly possible to prefer some curve that is unattainable this way. But a simplistic "a tax flat in dollars is regressive in utility" isn't applicable.

I'm in favor of a much simplified structure, applied evenly, as fairly as possible, and much smaller government needed to operate it. A lot of spending comes down to complicated bureaucracies, reducing those is a big step. Another benefit of a basic income, is it would allow the revocation of a lot of welfare and stimulus programs, and their own layers of corruption and bureaucracy.

I'm also in favor of cutting the overall defense and operations budgets by at least 2/3 ... There's a lot of ways the federal government could be much more effective, and reduce expenditures at the same time.

And although I don't know how much I feel it is the government's place, a baseline healthcare system could even be funded in a much better way than Obamacare. I tend to lean libertarian, but I'm a pragmatist. I just want solutions that are responsible, and have a chance at making things better, while avoiding as much chance for corruption and bureaucracy as possible. Not to mention reducing the footprint of the federal government, and reducing the impact of corporate protectionism along the way.

Corporate personhood (as far as I understand) is required by limited liability, which makes a lot of sense to me. Separating a company's debts from the owners' debts (and preventing creditors from going after the owners of a company when it goes bankrupt) is very encouraging for new and small businesses. The debts of the company become separate from the debts of its owners. It encourages people to start businesses and take loans, not having to worry that they'd lose everything if their startup goes under (at least theoretically).

OMHO one of the biggest arguments for corporate personhood is they are tax paying entities... if you reduce corporations to only allow shared ownership and limited liability, while also limiting the holding of underutilized assets and capital, it would even out. I'm not talking about liability, I'm talking about holdings, taxes and political sway.

While I agree with the idea itself, I don't think you can prevent that realistically. In the end, it's not "corporations" that donate money, but the people in charge of those corporations. If those people (the CEOs, VPs, board members and so on) want to make a donation, they can always do so privately (and most of them certainly have the money to do it).

I feel this is the heart of the issue, that people think of money and wealth as "mine" vs. "not mine." It's the whole American individualism at play, where it's you vs. everyone else, where you getting richer is a Good Thing, even if (or maybe especially if) it increases the gap between you and others.

Whereas a much healthier mindset is "mine" vs. "ours." You have money that belongs to you and you have money that belongs to your community. This community can be a neighborhood, a city, a state or even a country. Once you flip this mental switch, you realize that the taxes you pay are not really taken away from you, but rather shared with everyone in your community (of which you are a part).

I understand that taxation is necessary. I also understand that people like to keep what they earn. I draw this line at half... and I would draw that same line for the wealthiest (who bend current tax law to pay far less than half) to the poorest, who would recieve a basic income (along with everyone else) to subset the half that they earn and get to keep.

How about the internet? The web? Nuclear energy? All of this has been payed for by taxpayers.

EDIT: I am getting a couple of down votes, so I am assuming people are asking for some sources. Most of the research, for internet at least, was actually funded by the department of defense [1]

[1] http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/histor...

It's funny how the idea the fact that government provided some early foundations for the Internet somehow awards them full credit for it, doesn't apply to the private inventions such as electricity and the telephone without which the government couldn't have invented the Internet.

First, you're understating the government contribution. DARPA didn't just research network theory. They built a network. TCP/IP was designed under contract. Also, that point undermines the original argument, which is that entrepreneurs are necessary for innovation. Once the technology exists, development is something that can be done with a rate-regulated monopoly. AT&T wired up every person in America under such a regime.

I'm not saying that this would be my preferred model, but its one that works just fine.

For at least a year after I started on the internet in Dec 1991, any use of the internet for "commercial activity" was disallowed (and did not happen enough for a person to notice it). Spam had not been invented yet; the entire marketing profession seemed unaware of the existence of the internet; the main form of promotion I can remember is announcements of academic and technical conferences; it was OK to make a "work wanted" post on Usenet only if you wanted to become an employee ("W-2") -- contractors ("1099") and one-man consulting shops were prohibited from using the internet to look for clients.

Although a few private-sector companies (UUNET for example although started as a non-profit in 1987 became a for-profit in 1989) were influencing the internet at this time, the influence was minor compared to the influence of governments, governmental contractors (notably BBN and Mitre) and universities.

And again, the internet was already very valuable and very able to enrich people's lives -- provided that those people were willing to use command-line interfaces.

Just because government money was involved doesn't mean the government developed the technologies, nor that profit wasn't a prime motive.

Who said this? I was merely pointing out that "new" technology, as appeared in the quote I responded to, it actually usually kickstarted by taxpayer money. I am not interested in where it went from there.

Said what exactly? The comment you were responding to is titled "How can you dismiss socialism so casually?"

> I am not interested in where it went from there.

Well, that's awfully convenient, isn't it? If we only consider technology that's developed by the government it's much easier to reach the desired conclusion.

That was pretty good incentive to pipeline money to Bell Labs or the PARC: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an...

And look where that got us.

Steve Blank's "Secret History of Silicon Valley" [1] reveals just how heavily the Silicon and other semiconductors in Silicon Valley depended on DoD funding, and SV likely wouldn't be where it is without that funding. Parenthetically, 'Secret History' is also just plain fun and fascinating to watch.

The plumbing of the internet exists because of DoD's ARPA (now DARPA) project to connect and share expensive computing resources.

Entrepreneurs may be part of the equation, but ignoring the significant government role in the technology we have seems likely to lead to wrong conclusions.

[1] http://steveblank.com/secret-history/ [2] "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet ", Katie Hafner

It is true that the NIH conducts basic research that often identifies biologic targets, but there is a huge difference between discovering a lead compound and actually bringing it to market. That difference is about $1B. That money has to come from somewhere and the free market is a great place to get it.

The golden years of British innovation where in the 50s and 60s all right but 1850s and 1860s, maybe even earlier. By the end of the WWII Britain was a shade of its former self completely eclipsed by the US. Although to be fair, tax policy probably wasn't the decisive factor.

England / the UK is a mess at the moment. They are heavily in debt. They keep on cutting benefits to the poor and allowing the rich to pay even less tax. According to your argument everything should be getting better because of this, but I assure you it is not.

Debt is high, but the key metric of net debt as a proportion of GDP is decelerating and is forecast by the Office of National Statistics to level out over the next few years and be falling within 3-4 years. [2]

The UK has made cuts to social and welfare budgets, but these cuts are actually smaller than across the Eurozone. Social spending has risen faster since 2000 in the UK than anywhere in the OECD. [3]

There are still issues with wealth disparity (poor vs rich and South-east versus the rest of the country), tax avoidance (mainly corporate), and challenges with reforming the welfare state so that benefits are there for the those that genuinely need whilst not creating a disincentive to those that work. However, saying the UK is mess at the moment, is do dismiss the facts.

[1] http://news.sky.com/story/1238991/imf-sees-uk-growth-remaini...

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25944653

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10574376/Graphic-Br...

The main measure of an economy is GDP per capita. Apart from cyclical fluctuations, the main drivers of GDP per capita are are investment and productivity.

In the UK both of these are below that of the major developed economies.

As for the current growth of the economy-all is not well, as there is a large current account deficit, which is being funded by borrowing from overseas and is not sustainable.

Do we have rubbish piling up on the streets, dead people piling up not being buried? Do we have rolling power cuts due to strikes? Are we all on a 3 day week? Massive inflation and interest rates?

The UK is turning the corner after the disastrous spend spend spend! Socialism of the last decade.

That's a very polite way of acknowledging that the UK government ran a massive deficit-funded spending campaign throughout one of the fattest and longest boom cycle in history.

The UK competes with many other places for where the rich want to live. France has had a disaster with their recent proposed 75% tax rate.

The same goes for entrepreneurs - would you register your startup in the USA if the tax rates, especially on capital gains were massively higher than elsewhere? It's also a question of VC capital - would they let you.

It's better for the USA to get it's cut of Facebook's success rather than drive Facebook into a tax haven and get nothing.

And the race top the bottom continues.

Wages going down for the majority, while a few get a lot richer is hardly what I would describe as progress.

Please don't buy into the propaganda. I think you are confusing invention with smart packaging and marketing what was already developed. None of the technology we see today were bootstrapped by individuals or private investors. As a counter argument I will direct you to this talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_invest...

Even though the USA pays the most in the world for it's military, I was surprised how little of the GDP it actually was.

It's poor example considering that Finland is not a socialist country, they have the same capitalistic economy and democratic government that US and most of Europe have.