Oito
Banned
Its true there are too many loop holes in the system... get rid of the IRS, pick a flat tax rate % and be done with it...
Should the Rich Pay More Tax?
- Thread starter robbied196
- Start date
Its true there are too many loop holes in the system... get rid of the IRS, pick a flat tax rate % and be done with it...
Jane Burgess
Official Checked Star Member
Forcing the rich to pay more in taxes is not the answer. A majority of them are already paying more taxes anyway. The wealthy spend the money, start or already run businesses, create jobs, etc. If they have less money then they spend less money, create no new jobs, and lay or fire people. The answer is not always taxing more people.
Then that person better get his/her ass to the kitchen and bake.
Or better yet, those who are have two pieces of pie and who are concerned that someone doesn't have one, then, if they really are so good and so generous (and not just pretending to be) should give them one of their own, and stop forcing someone like me, who happens to have three pieces, one for me and each member of my own family, to give it to a complete stranger who I have no idea why they don't have one, maybe it's bad luck or maybe they're just too lazy to bake, I don't know.
Anyway, wealth is not a zero sum game, it can be created. If got a product people want, I make more of it and people will pay me, of course to produce it I have to hire people, I pay them (then they pay bills, house, schools, etc.) I pay suppliers who have a product I want (then they pay their own bills, suppliers, workers) ad infinitum. By being productive is how you create wealth.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ive posted similar before spyder.
if many people care alot about those they consider poor
and really want to help them, but with someone elses money.
If those who are so concerned really are what they represent themselves as, then they could always adopt a family.
work 2 or 3 jobs, eat ramen noodles and move into a smaller cheaper place in a less expensive area.
This way they can feel the self gratuitous sensation of helping a family.
but no, its easier just to spend someone elses hard earned dough.
I once heard that out of the 8 million people in NYC that the richest 40,000 pay 60% of all total tax revenue.
what % of 8,000,000 is 40,000?
these people should be treated like royalty, but instead they are labeled greedy and heartless.
many of them have left new york due to the overwhelming tax burden, leaving those who stay with an even higher one.
If the government needs money it makes sense for them to go where the money is.
It's all a sop to the left though, in practical terms you can't get a resourceful person to pay what he considers an unfair amount of tax.He goes along to his accountant and find a way of reducing the tax bill.When the Thatcher government slashed the top tax rate the actual take from the rich went up because people paid up instead of going into avoidence schemes.
It's all a sop to the left though, in practical terms you can't get a resourceful person to pay what he considers an unfair amount of tax.He goes along to his accountant and find a way of reducing the tax bill.When the Thatcher government slashed the top tax rate the actual take from the rich went up because people paid up instead of going into avoidence schemes.
What if the guy with the 3 pieces of pie has them because he earned them by working really hard, sacrificing, and becoming successful while the person with 1 piece sits on their ass all day never trying to better themselves or improve their lot in life while at the same time railing constantly about how unfair life is?
The problem with that analogy is that there are a lot of people 'working really hard and sacrificing' for 1 piece of pie. Unfortunately, society will always include people who contribute and do nothing.
I agree, the government will have to go where the money is, although how much extra they manage to raise by increasing the top rate to 50% will have to be seen. The outlook can be painted very bleak, every family in the UK is looking at paying another £1400 a year in taxation, and the debt we owe is expected to take 23 years to clear! Although most of the banks are now partly or fully publicly owned, one thing I don't want to see is the banks announcing huge profits again! I don't see many steps being taken to recover part of the debt from the source of the problem.
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.
Exactly my thought. :thumbsup:
How is that a punishment for success?
show me one person that choose to be in a position that paid them less so that they wouldn't be higher taxed. Sure it sounds like a good argument... until you actually think about it. The people in the highest (or just any but the lowest) tax bracket still make more money after taxes then everyone else because... get this... if they made less money after taxes than their tax bracket minimum... than they would be in a lower tax income bracket and thus pay less taxes. Are you going to tell me that that is not the case? It obviously is.
If that is too complicated for you, here is the simple version: no matter how many taxes you pay it's always better to make more money than less, and you will always earn more money than you have to pay in taxes.
show me one person that choose to be in a position that paid them less so that they wouldn't be higher taxed. Sure it sounds like a good argument... until you actually think about it. The people in the highest (or just any but the lowest) tax bracket still make more money after taxes then everyone else because... get this... if they made less money after taxes than their tax bracket minimum... than they would be in a lower tax income bracket and thus pay less taxes. Are you going to tell me that that is not the case? It obviously is.
If that is too complicated for you, here is the simple version: no matter how many taxes you pay it's always better to make more money than less, and you will always earn more money than you have to pay in taxes.
If it's incremental and not sever (e.g., punishing success), then I don't have a problem with a moderately increasing scale for income tax. The bigger problem I have is all of the other taxes and fees that we all pay at the local, state, county and federal levels that everyone forgets about. If you add all of those up, it's a shockingly large amount, and when added to your income tax, is now over 50% of your income (which approaches the European countries, except we get nothing for it).
The best thing to do would be remove any tax on income and tax CONSUMPTION instead.
The more you "stuff" you want, the more tax you pay. In other words, the more you take out, the more you put in.This would most likely be above and beyond standard sales tax.
That way, everyone is responsible for their own choices.
Certain items like milk, bread, eggs, etc. should be non-taxable.
If a baby mama wants a big screen instead of milk for her kid she's gonna pay a premium for that decision. So maybe, just maybe, she will do the right thing and make the differentiation between a "want" and a "need" and buy her kid some leche instead.
And in that fashion, high earners probably would pay more tax because they are more likely to buy more "stuff." However, if they earn a lot but don't buy a lot of crap, then they aren't really taxing the industrial/retail infrastructure so why should they pay more taxes?
The more you "stuff" you want, the more tax you pay. In other words, the more you take out, the more you put in.This would most likely be above and beyond standard sales tax.
That way, everyone is responsible for their own choices.
Certain items like milk, bread, eggs, etc. should be non-taxable.
If a baby mama wants a big screen instead of milk for her kid she's gonna pay a premium for that decision. So maybe, just maybe, she will do the right thing and make the differentiation between a "want" and a "need" and buy her kid some leche instead.
And in that fashion, high earners probably would pay more tax because they are more likely to buy more "stuff." However, if they earn a lot but don't buy a lot of crap, then they aren't really taxing the industrial/retail infrastructure so why should they pay more taxes?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
thats not a bad idea donkey boy, but it would have negative results in the long run.
it would hurt the ecomony because people would not spend as much.
A loser is a loser, if they are gonna piss away money theyre gonna piss it away.
but your way would make sensible people not spend, and ultimately hurt the ecomony.
I respectfully disagree.
I am a sensible person. I make the differentiation between "wants" and "needs." But that doesn't stop me from spending. I still buy my "wants" but I do so when my "needs" are covered and I have left over money. In fact, since I have started doing this coupled with using cash vs. credit, I have actually found I have more discretionary income and have been able to purchase my "wants" at an accelerated pace.
Certain needs should be taxed as well. Especially if they are subsidized by the government. Certain one's should not be -- especially those related to children.
It's not a new idea either: http://www.fairtax.org/
The "Fair Tax" has been gaining some steam over the past several years. One of the biggest obstacles is the potential "hit" the tax preparation industry in the US would take as they made the shift from tax prep for citizens to take prep for business.
Sooner or later though, people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions. In the meantime though, the current system of taxing an individual based on their income and overall success seems like a broken system IMHO. Especially when we are paying into the current system and the $$$ is being misused and wasted and we will never see any benefit from it.
One thing I don't agree with though is the concept of a flat tax. That DEFINITELY hurts the person who makes less and benefits those who make more.
:glugglug:
Facetious
Moderated
Re: Should the Rich Pay More Tax?
Without reading through the entire thread, it all depends on what or how "rich" is defined.
Many self employed people may appear as rich, yet they struggle to make a decent profit after all of the business overhead expenses, including taxes are paid.
The Obama admin. campaigned for the Office of the President of the United States of America using the $250,000 and above income level as being "rich", yet they never stated whether they meant before (gross pay) or after taxes (net pay). We found out after the fact on that one, didn't we ?
Oh well, at least that there are more "rich" people in America than under the previous admin. :uohs: which reminds me . .
I can already hear the Obama campaign ranting to the willing, impressionable populous, pre 2012 election :
"Over the last 4 years, we have created a much more prosperous nation than compared to just 4 short years ago under geo buelshit".
Then and only then could prosperity be a good thing.
Without reading through the entire thread, it all depends on what or how "rich" is defined.
Many self employed people may appear as rich, yet they struggle to make a decent profit after all of the business overhead expenses, including taxes are paid.
The Obama admin. campaigned for the Office of the President of the United States of America using the $250,000 and above income level as being "rich", yet they never stated whether they meant before (gross pay) or after taxes (net pay). We found out after the fact on that one, didn't we ?
Oh well, at least that there are more "rich" people in America than under the previous admin. :uohs: which reminds me . .
I can already hear the Obama campaign ranting to the willing, impressionable populous, pre 2012 election :
"Over the last 4 years, we have created a much more prosperous nation than compared to just 4 short years ago under geo buelshit".
Then and only then could prosperity be a good thing.
Re: Should the Rich Pay More Tax?
Without reading through the entire thread, it all depends on what or how "rich" is defined.
Many self employed people may appear as rich, yet they struggle to make a decent profit after all of the business overhead expenses, including taxes are paid.
The Obama admin. campaigned for the Office of the President of the United States of America using the $250,000 and above as being "rich", yet they never stated whether they meant before (gross pay) or after taxes (net pay).
Oh well, at least that there are more "rich" people in America than under the previous admin. :uohs: which reminds me . .
I can already hear the Obama ranting to the willing, impressionable populous, pre 2012 election :
"We have created a much more prosperous nation today than compared to just 4 short years ago under geo buelshit".
The tax increase will be on Net Profit after all business expense not Gross Receipts. For non business W-2 taxpayers it would be on Gross Income minus allowable deductions. This has been stated but I guess you were not listening given all the surveillance you do.
I've always been a tax the rich sort of person.
For one for years now they have been getting tax break after tax break and it hasn't helped. All those supply side/trickle down economist need to be brought out in the middle of the street and beat for being as stupid as they were.
For the most part, the rich through tax break after tax break, how their investments are tax compared to normal wages, legal, illegal, and even quasi-legal tax shelters, and just plain hiding their wealth don't pay any more per dollar made than most people do. They often pay less.
The more you make the more you should pay relative to somebody else just for the simple fact that at higher incomes earners can afford to pay more without it adversely affecting them. I think it's completely fair that way. Taxing somebody 50% that makes 5 million dollars a year is still much MUCH less burdensome for them than somebody that's near the bottom paying 10% for example. It's not like they go into a grocery store and all of a sudden bread is 50 dollars for them a loaf and 2 dollars for everybody else. Everything cost the same no matter who buys it. While it might technically be uneven for every person, so is the fact some healthy 20 year old male might be drafted into the military if his country needs them enough wile a 60 year old women (or probably even man) doesn't have to worry about that. Yet it's done because society needs it, and they are more capable and it's less of a burden on them. I see taxing the rich in a similar matter. Taxing away more of their wealth is much less a problem for them than somebody living on the fringe. Duty to society and fellow countrymen trumps somebody's perceived right, which they don't have, to become richer than God. To say nothing that usually other people get exploited and hurt in the process of somebody trying to become that rich.
Taxing only consumption would probably in the end just be something that benefits the rich even more than what we have now. Not only do they still pay the same price for a loaf of bread as everybody else, but it isn't like all of them will suddenly buy fifteen homes and twenty cars, or any other item that a consumer buys because it's not like they need them. People that are poorer will have to buy up to what they need which will take away a huge portion of what they earn. Sure the rich will spend more than most people, but at some point there will be diminishing returns on that as at a certain point they really don't have to spend too much because they already got what they need and then they can just amass HUGE amount of wealth tax free.
Some people like to claim that giving the rich more money will in turn make it better for everybody else (See: trickle down economics) but it hasn't worked. It's like they assume that giving it to normal people won't help the economy for some reason. In fact since a lot of rich can just amass so much wealth and store it without spending it the idea that that would ever work is just plain stupid. A big side effect of this is the more corporate wealth and power is concentrated the more power they have in society as a whole. When you have a group with that much wealth and influence it's easier for them to gain access to politicians and elected officials that control this country that normal people will never have a hope of achieving. They will use the excuse that since they control so much it's only natural that they get access. Of course then they get heard above everybody else, get their agenda pushed ahead of other people, and get laws the way they want weather any of those things are good for society and the people in it or just good for them. Usually it's almost always the later.
For one for years now they have been getting tax break after tax break and it hasn't helped. All those supply side/trickle down economist need to be brought out in the middle of the street and beat for being as stupid as they were.
For the most part, the rich through tax break after tax break, how their investments are tax compared to normal wages, legal, illegal, and even quasi-legal tax shelters, and just plain hiding their wealth don't pay any more per dollar made than most people do. They often pay less.
The more you make the more you should pay relative to somebody else just for the simple fact that at higher incomes earners can afford to pay more without it adversely affecting them. I think it's completely fair that way. Taxing somebody 50% that makes 5 million dollars a year is still much MUCH less burdensome for them than somebody that's near the bottom paying 10% for example. It's not like they go into a grocery store and all of a sudden bread is 50 dollars for them a loaf and 2 dollars for everybody else. Everything cost the same no matter who buys it. While it might technically be uneven for every person, so is the fact some healthy 20 year old male might be drafted into the military if his country needs them enough wile a 60 year old women (or probably even man) doesn't have to worry about that. Yet it's done because society needs it, and they are more capable and it's less of a burden on them. I see taxing the rich in a similar matter. Taxing away more of their wealth is much less a problem for them than somebody living on the fringe. Duty to society and fellow countrymen trumps somebody's perceived right, which they don't have, to become richer than God. To say nothing that usually other people get exploited and hurt in the process of somebody trying to become that rich.
Taxing only consumption would probably in the end just be something that benefits the rich even more than what we have now. Not only do they still pay the same price for a loaf of bread as everybody else, but it isn't like all of them will suddenly buy fifteen homes and twenty cars, or any other item that a consumer buys because it's not like they need them. People that are poorer will have to buy up to what they need which will take away a huge portion of what they earn. Sure the rich will spend more than most people, but at some point there will be diminishing returns on that as at a certain point they really don't have to spend too much because they already got what they need and then they can just amass HUGE amount of wealth tax free.
Some people like to claim that giving the rich more money will in turn make it better for everybody else (See: trickle down economics) but it hasn't worked. It's like they assume that giving it to normal people won't help the economy for some reason. In fact since a lot of rich can just amass so much wealth and store it without spending it the idea that that would ever work is just plain stupid. A big side effect of this is the more corporate wealth and power is concentrated the more power they have in society as a whole. When you have a group with that much wealth and influence it's easier for them to gain access to politicians and elected officials that control this country that normal people will never have a hope of achieving. They will use the excuse that since they control so much it's only natural that they get access. Of course then they get heard above everybody else, get their agenda pushed ahead of other people, and get laws the way they want weather any of those things are good for society and the people in it or just good for them. Usually it's almost always the later.
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
I think the bankers and the politicians should pay more fucking tax :thumbsup:
Similar threads
