Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt the Lower Class ?

Page 6 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

19 Jul 2012, 8:57 pm

No.


_________________
INTJ


aussiebloke
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,407

19 Jul 2012, 9:11 pm

Oodain wrote:
bull

denmark has a high income tax and lower ammount of unemployed compared to the us.

so at least we can be sure its not inherently so or the most realistic option, there are thousands of variables independant of tax that help decide how people behave.

why we even entyertain these absolutist notions in either direction is far beyond me.


And than some .....


_________________
Theirs a subset of America, adult males who are forgoing ambition ,sex , money ,love ,adventure to sit in a darkened rooms mastering video games - Suicide Bob


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 6:21 pm

WhiteWidow wrote:
Do you know why this is even an article? Because it's meant to look like a complex and intellectual ISSUE. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Who do you expect to pay for all of the crap that poor people can't pay for? The birds and the bees and the fish in the sea? No! The people who make more than their fair share! The people who have enough for everyone. Remember in kindergarden when you had more than one or two? You were told to give one to your friend. I guess that lesson some how went out the window once people realized that crime pays. But what does it pay? Material wealth, which is scientifically proven to not make people feel complete.


Who makes these things? Why, machines do? Who invested in the machines? Governments did that, it was government research that drove automation. That means the people. One more point; NAIRU. Governments deliberately create a reserve army of labour in the name of fighting inflation. Surely it would be indecent not to keep the army of inflation fighters alive.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 6:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
riffing on lord acton, i say that money is power, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.


all the more reason for keeping the government as unpowerful as possible consistent with peace and order within the domain.

ruveyn


Indeed, an entity that's the most accountable to the people must be defanged so a bunch of ultra-psychopathic Bond villains can run loose. Brilliant!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Jul 2012, 7:45 pm

xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
riffing on lord acton, i say that money is power, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.


all the more reason for keeping the government as unpowerful as possible consistent with peace and order within the domain.

ruveyn


Indeed, an entity that's the most accountable to the people must be defanged so a bunch of ultra-psychopathic Bond villains can run loose. Brilliant!


The day to day running of the U.S. government is quite unaccountable to the people. The U.S. government is the thing most dangerous to the liberty of the American people.

When Joseph was viceroy of Egypt he laid on a 20 percent tax and was accounted a wicked man for doing so.

During the Feudal period serfs paid at 25 percent tax to their Liege Lord.

The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

We are not only overtaxed we are expected to thank our government for plucking our feathers out.

ruveyn



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

20 Jul 2012, 8:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

ruveyn


Well, I think that most people have no (or little) federal income tax.

State income and sales taxes take a bunch, as do property taxes.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

20 Jul 2012, 10:30 pm

The main problem with government is that there are such filthy rich people who are allowed to be so filthy rich that they buy off politicians and control the government. That's the main problem. If those people were defanged that would solve much of what's wrong with the government. The problem is the filthy rich who think they should own everything and everyone.

People have more say about what they get for taxes than any serf on a demesne ever did. That is until a bunch of filthy rich bought the government of course.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The American people are taxed at over 30 percent on the average.

ruveyn


Well, I think that most people have no (or little) federal income tax.

State income and sales taxes take a bunch, as do property taxes.



You are correct. I think around 47% of the population doesn't pay any federal income taxes in this country. State and local governments, is where most of our tax dollars go (as it should be). When you add up all of the nickel and diming from state, local, and federal governments, some people (especially the ones that pay federal income taxes) are paying in the neighborhood of 40-50% of their income out to taxes.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 5:57 pm

WhiteWidow wrote:
Do you know why this is even an article? Because it's meant to look like a complex and intellectual ISSUE. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. Who do you expect to pay for all of the crap that poor people can't pay for? The birds and the bees and the fish in the sea? No! The people who make more than their fair share! The people who have enough for everyone. Remember in kindergarden when you had more than one or two? You were told to give one to your friend. I guess that lesson some how went out the window once people realized that crime pays. But what does it pay? Material wealth, which is scientifically proven to not make people feel complete.


I understand what you are saying, but I don't really make more that my fair share, yet I am still required to pay extra for people that don't. This is an issue for the working poor, and middle class people as well, you know.

The way people in our government think, is like this; "hey, rich people have all of the money now, so we'll just tax them more, and give it to ourselves, and/or other people"

What they should be thinking is this; "Hey, how did such a small percentage of people get so much money, while the rest of the population has very little?"



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

24 Jul 2012, 7:26 pm

Many got rich because we dropped their rates substantially in the 1980s and never replaced the revenue stream. Hello debt.

The same reason that so many don't pay federal income taxes. Under Clinton the rate was only 34% not paying. Today it's 47%. That's the Bush cuts. When you cut taxes and increase credits you put more people into that zone. It's funny that it's a GOP talking point today. They voted for it. lol.

Everyone needs to pay more. Cold hard facts. But it's not a pretty thing to run on.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

24 Jul 2012, 8:23 pm

simon_says wrote:
Many got rich because we dropped their rates substantially in the 1980s and never replaced the revenue stream. Hello debt.

The same reason that so many don't pay federal income taxes. Under Clinton the rate was only 34% not paying. Today it's 47%. That's the Bush cuts. When you cut taxes and increase credits you put more people into that zone. It's funny that it's a GOP talking point today. They voted for it. lol.

Everyone needs to pay more. Cold hard facts. But it's not a pretty thing to run on.




I agree. The amount of money coming in should at least be equal to the amount going out, and that doesn't even cover paying off the debt. The problem with those people that aren't paying enough, or any taxes, is that they will pitch a fit if they have to pony up, even though they should have been paying more all along. :D



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

24 Jul 2012, 11:24 pm

Why does it seem that only the US gives shelter to people that actually believe something as crazy as this?


_________________
.


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Jul 2012, 12:25 pm

SilverStar wrote:
marshall wrote:
You're confusing simplicity with fairness and real-world practicality. Having everyone pay the same "flat" percentage is just as arbitrary a standard as having everyone pay the same exact amount. The real issue is how do you structure the tax code to generate the needed revenue to support those government functions the nation agrees are vital.



Actually, when people talk about a flat tax plan, reducing, and/or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions, are a big part of it. In that instance, I was referring mostly to the deductions, credits, and exemptions part of it. Flat tax plans combine fairness and simplicity. With this plan, the intention is to reduce the overall tax rate, which would make it easier for lower income people to pay. Also, with a simpler tax code, efficiencies should increase, which would mean less time and money is wasted.

Also, having everybody paying the same percent isn't the same as paying the same exact amount.

Example at a 10% flat rate:

Person A makes $20,000 per year - they would pay $2,000
Person B makes $200,000 per year - they would pay $20,000
person C makes $2,000,000 per year - they would pay $200,000

...


Let's say basic expenses--necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care--cost $19000.00/year.

For the person making $20,000.00/year, basics + taxes would be $21,000.00, meaning this person would have an annual debt of $1000.00.

The person making $200,000.00 would only have a minimum burden of $39,000.00 (basics + taxes) for a net discretionary income of $161,000.00..... etc.


Now, can you see why some people might think this is not fair?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Jul 2012, 12:29 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
SilverStar wrote:
marshall wrote:
You're confusing simplicity with fairness and real-world practicality. Having everyone pay the same "flat" percentage is just as arbitrary a standard as having everyone pay the same exact amount. The real issue is how do you structure the tax code to generate the needed revenue to support those government functions the nation agrees are vital.



Actually, when people talk about a flat tax plan, reducing, and/or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions, are a big part of it. In that instance, I was referring mostly to the deductions, credits, and exemptions part of it. Flat tax plans combine fairness and simplicity. With this plan, the intention is to reduce the overall tax rate, which would make it easier for lower income people to pay. Also, with a simpler tax code, efficiencies should increase, which would mean less time and money is wasted.

Also, having everybody paying the same percent isn't the same as paying the same exact amount.

Example at a 10% flat rate:

Person A makes $20,000 per year - they would pay $2,000
Person B makes $200,000 per year - they would pay $20,000
person C makes $2,000,000 per year - they would pay $200,000

...


Let's say basic expenses--necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care--cost $19000.00/year.

For the person making $20,000.00/year, basics + taxes would be $21,000.00, meaning this person would have an annual debt of $1000.00.

The person making $200,000.00 would only have a minimum burden of $39,000.00 (basics + taxes) for a net discretionary income of $161,000.00..... etc.


Now, can you see why some people might think this is not fair?


Apply the flat tax rate of 10% to amounts over $20,000. Problem solved.

A household with invomr of $20,000 would pay zero.

ruveyn



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

27 Jul 2012, 1:11 pm

That's a step in the right direction.


I'd like to see a system like this:

$1-$50,000= tax exempt



For income after the initial $50,000-


$1-$200,000= 20% tax
$200,001-$600,000= 30% tax
$600,001-$1,000,000= 35% tax
$1,000,000+= 50% tax

No deductions or exemptions.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

30 Jul 2012, 8:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
SilverStar wrote:
marshall wrote:
You're confusing simplicity with fairness and real-world practicality. Having everyone pay the same "flat" percentage is just as arbitrary a standard as having everyone pay the same exact amount. The real issue is how do you structure the tax code to generate the needed revenue to support those government functions the nation agrees are vital.



Actually, when people talk about a flat tax plan, reducing, and/or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions, are a big part of it. In that instance, I was referring mostly to the deductions, credits, and exemptions part of it. Flat tax plans combine fairness and simplicity. With this plan, the intention is to reduce the overall tax rate, which would make it easier for lower income people to pay. Also, with a simpler tax code, efficiencies should increase, which would mean less time and money is wasted.

Also, having everybody paying the same percent isn't the same as paying the same exact amount.

Example at a 10% flat rate:

Person A makes $20,000 per year - they would pay $2,000
Person B makes $200,000 per year - they would pay $20,000
person C makes $2,000,000 per year - they would pay $200,000

...


Let's say basic expenses--necessities, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care--cost $19000.00/year.

For the person making $20,000.00/year, basics + taxes would be $21,000.00, meaning this person would have an annual debt of $1000.00.

The person making $200,000.00 would only have a minimum burden of $39,000.00 (basics + taxes) for a net discretionary income of $161,000.00..... etc.


Now, can you see why some people might think this is not fair?


Apply the flat tax rate of 10% to amounts over $20,000. Problem solved.

A household with invomr of $20,000 would pay zero.

ruveyn



The thing about only taxing people over a certain amount, is that some people (especially teenagers) only work part time jobs, or just part of the year...many by choice, so how would the government know if they really needed the extra money in their pockets, or not? I think that people with lower incomes should at least pay some taxes. Maybe around 5%? How about changing the code to 5, 10, 15, and 20% tax brackets, with no exemptions, deductions, or credits? How about a national sales tax, with exemptions on the basic necessities? This would allow them to purchase the things that they really need, and deter them from spending on other items that they don't really need.