Should the Rich Pay More Tax?

[robbied196]

Britain has just had its budget. I had a heated debate with a friend last night who didn't think it was fair to increase taxes on high earners to help pay off the debts of the current economical situation. I think its perfectly fare that the greater earners should pay a higher proportion of income as tax.

'Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that those earning over £150,000 will face a 50p rate from next April, while everyone on more than £100,000 will lose their personal tax allowance at the same time.

The measures will affect around 300,000 people above the higher limit, and some 600,000 whose pay packets are in six figures.

An individual pulling in £150,000-£200,000 can expect to pay around £80 per week more.'

So, lets vote

 

[Hot Mega]

It depends. I know here in the US though, I never hear "the rich" complaining about what they pay in taxes.

For some strange reason it's always the "Joe plumbers" who complain about tax rates that don't affect them.

While the so-called "rich" tend to vote in favor of those who suggest they will raise taxes on "the rich". Go figure.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Britain has just had its budget. I had a heated debate with a friend last night who didn't think it was fair to increase taxes on high earners to help pay off the debts of the current economical situation. I think its perfectly fare that the greater earners should pay a higher proportion of income as tax.

'Chancellor Alistair Darling announced that those earning over £150,000 will face a 50p rate from next April, while everyone on more than £100,000 will lose their personal tax allowance at the same time.

The measures will affect around 300,000 people above the higher limit, and some 600,000 whose pay packets are in six figures.

An individual pulling in £150,000-£200,000 can expect to pay around £80 per week more.'

So, lets vote

I'm with you a progressive tax system based on ability to pay is best way to go for all.It's much worse here in the US where the rates on the top were slashed in the 80s.Time to make them share their fair burden again,that system worked pretty well for us in post ww2 era and the wealth of the country exploded not for just the wealthy but across almost all income ranges.It resulted in middle class really getting ahead but also the rich having a more fertile economic enviorment and more customers able to purchase the goods sold .That has not been the case for last few decades.

 

[Paulo2221]

In a word Yes.

 

[Jagger69]

Only makes sense. You make more, you pay more. At least that's how it should work.

 

[Neutron66]

The percentage should be the same. That would be fair but also mean the rich pay more.

Ten percent of 20 million is a lot more than ten percent of 20,000.

The percentage should be the same. Anything else is punishing people for being successful.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

The rich donate the most too, by far. I am split on this: on the one hand, higher taxes means more for the Gov't; on the other hand, I like to see the rich control where their money goes, just so long as they are doing something positive with it. It's complicated; it's hard to argue one way or the other. I like to see people with lots of money do good things with it and not have the Gov't doing things with it I don't agree with. For example, the US gov't spends billions on AIDS in Africa; I don't think that's fair in the least when most people with cancer get by no doing of themlselves, yet AIDS is a behavioral disease. This is just one example of Gov't waste. Ultimately, I think if the gov't was more smart with the taxpayers dollars I would agree they should take more the more you make, but they have done little to show they are responsible spenders, so again, It's really a hard question to answer. :dunno:

 

[jumbo_jim]

I can see both sides of the argument but I feel as though it should be the same percent paid by everyone.

 

[Boobinator]

If salary was strictly in relation to necessity of ones work, equal taxes would be ideal.

But the high-earners of society are overpaid and a lot of the time does work that's not really necessary for people.
For example, fashion is a commercial luxury, it provides very little to society. Yet models and designers still make more money than a fireman, doctor or police officer.

That's the biggest reason as to why I think higher taxes for higher salaries is reasonable. They're all dependent on a functioning society where infra-structure, health, law and order and education is a matter of course - otherwise people wouldn't be interested in fashion to begin with.


Also, Bloodshot Scott.
You assume that all rich people donate money. I'm not sure if what you're saying is true, that wealthy people donate the most. Sure, as individuals they do, but I'm inclined to believe that it's the upper middle-class that represent the most donated money - simply because they're so many it adds up. Don't take my word on this though, it's just speculation.

 

[Torre82]

The percentage should be the same. That would be fair but also mean the rich pay more.

Ten percent of 20 million is a lot more than ten percent of 20,000.

The percentage should be the same. Anything else is punishing people for being successful.

Punishment? No.
There's a reason they say the first million is the hardest to make: When you have no capital.. your earnings are shite. When you have more cash.. you can make twice as much pretty easily. I cant turn 200 bucks into 400 without selling narcotics or beating and mugging a random person. But 200,000 can turn into 400,000 with the right investments very quickly.

Or how about this mortgage fuckup? People bought cheap homes, turned them over for MILLIONS in profit.. and left everyone else to pick up the bill when it crashed down. Profiteering should be punished because in a capitalist society.. you earn YOUR money.. at someone elses's EXPENSE.

Since when did it become fucking *OKAY* to pay 20$ for 2$ items?!

 

[robbied196]

Punishment? No.
There's a reason they say the first million is the hardest to make: When you have no capital.. your earnings are shite. When you have more cash.. you can make twice as much pretty easily. I cant turn 200 bucks into 400 without selling narcotics or beating and mugging a random person. But 200,000 can turn into 400,000 with the right investments very quickly.

Or how about this mortgage fuckup? People bought cheap homes, turned them over for MILLIONS in profit.. and left everyone else to pick up the bill when it crashed down. Profiteering should be punished because in a capitalist society.. you earn YOUR money.. at someone elses's EXPENSE.

Since when did it become fucking *OKAY* to pay 20$ for 2$ items?!

:thumbsup: Money makes money!
Lets assume, (as were talking about the top 1% earners here in the UK) that to draw an income of over £150,000 a year, you probably have a £1,000,000 saved up in the bank. A million pounds (same for dollars!) in the bank with an interest rate of 4% you will earn £40,742 a year or £783.50 a week! So, the extra £80 a week their being asked for is nothing!

 

[ThatRedWing]

The problem is not with the tax rate. There are too many loopholes that the need to closed.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Also, Bloodshot Scott.
You assume that all rich people donate money. I'm not sure if what you're saying is true, that wealthy people donate the most. Sure, as individuals they do, but I'm inclined to believe that it's the upper middle-class that represent the most donated money - simply because they're so many it adds up. Don't take my word on this though, it's just speculation.

Here:

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as the average American household: 2% of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6% more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30% more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals — especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes and donated $165,660 — 18% of their income — to charity. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. They paid $602,651 in taxes and donated $166,547 — 5.5% of their income — to charity.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1% to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5%.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3% of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1% of their income.

So let's sum up. The "compassionate" liberals — at least based on charitable giving — show less compassion than "hardhearted" conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308442681180188

I think liberals are some of the most hypocritical people on earth. :2 cents:

 

[BlueBalls]

Of course they should.

No need for further explanation as to why I came to that decision, they should and that's that.

 

[meesterperfect]

ok, pay more tax or a higher percentage ?

if the percentage is the same, the more you earn the more you will pay.
so you will pay more and contribute more anyway right?

but i guess thats not enough.

by changing the percentage depending how much you earn, to me is unfair and discriminatory.

 

[Hypergalaxy]

They need to lower taxes for everyone but the Rich and then make rich peoples taxes a little bit higher to compensate.. Where I Live the Taxes are ridiculous

 

[Nester6]

It depends. I know here in the US though, I never hear "the rich" complaining about what they pay in taxes.

For some strange reason it's always the "Joe plumbers" who complain about tax rates that don't affect them.

While the so-called "rich" tend to vote in favor of those who suggest they will raise taxes on "the rich". Go figure.

Instead of the rich always paying more, how about the 40% of Americans who pay no taxes at all? I believe EVERYONE should pay some tax. Also, how about renters who have 5 kids in the school system and they pay no school tax. Just the home owners pay school taxes whether they have children or not. It doesn't seem fair.

 

[23lebron23]

Why take away the money they earn working hard and liveing the american dream?

You are punishing them for becomeing a success?

 

[Hot Mega]

I think liberals are some of the most hypocritical people on earth. :2 cents:

In many cases most of the charitable contributions by conservatives involve church tithings and offerings not what we traditionally consider giving to charity.

Conservatives tend to be involved a great deal more in church than progressives and that accounts for the disparity... not because conservatives are generally more charitable.

 

[Oito]

Only makes sense. You make more, you pay more. At least that's how it should work.

Jagger...what you describe is communism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

Do me a favor and read a book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

The problem is not with the tax rate. There are too many loopholes that the need to closed.

I agree... flat tax no loop holes... you make a $1 you give the government 20 cents.