-200 You don't think the rich should pay more in taxes, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Americans, Americans. I thought rich people were dying for the government to tax them more.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They worked for their money. They are no different from the rest of us, why could we charge them different for the same thing?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They're not necessarily paying more, just a higher percentage. They still have more.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly as swimlax said. Because otherwise you'd have Bill Gates pay the same dollar amount as a 19 year old waitress.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't know if you're aware, but that's not how our tax system works...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm perfectly aware. Aware that rich people need to pay more than the poor otherwise it just wouldn't be fair. People say rich people shouldn't pay more but if Bill Gates pays the same dollar amount as a waitress, there's a problem.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They shouldn't pay more of a //percentage// is what I agree with.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Maybe you should have specified that, because agreeing with a higher percentage is a lot different than thinking that "you'd have Bill Gates pay the same dollar amount as a 19 year old waitress."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're not making any sense. I never said I agreed with a higher percentage. People who want the rich and poor to pay the SAME AMOUNT are ridiculous, I don't know why that's news to some people. I'm talking about amount, and I've already specified when I said //dollar amount//.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

...no one wants that...no one even said they wanted that... and yes you did. "They shouldn't pay more of a percentage is what I agree with."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Let's just see what's going on for a second. Me: "I **never said I agreed** with a higher percentage." Then you quoted me saying the exact same thing: "They **shouldn't** pay more of a percentage is what I agree with." I don't know if you just misread or what...because I DON'T support the rich paying a higher percentage.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Woah, fuck my life...I read that as should. "Should" makes sense because I thought it was a correction to that you thought they should pay more than others. My bad ono

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Everyone should pay a % on their wages with no loopholes (for the rich at least because they can afford it rather than someone with a extremely low income). Maybe then more taxes for whoever / whatever they feel like taxing.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

With how fucked over poor people are in America and how shitty the welfare, healthcare and social service systems are...oh yes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then work for your money. Kind of like how they did?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't think anyone wanted the rich to pay more taxes. I just want them to pay the same percentage as everyone else. Technically they would be paying more than everyone else, but they also technically would be paying the same as everyone else. It all depends on how you look at it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The top 1% of the nations income earners pay 40% of the nations taxes. Now a fair question would be "But don't they have 40% of the wealth?" Well no. They actually have 25% of the wealth. This means they are paying almost twice their fair share in taxes

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They do have 40% of the of the wealth, they just don't earn 40% of the wealth annually... They make up 25% of earned income every year. They have the wealth, but they're getting taxed on how much they have, not how much they earn? I'm not tax expert, so I'm probably wrong about that. That's just how I'm interpreting the numbers. And I suck at math, so take that with a grain of salt.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well you shouldn't be taxed on savings if that's what you mean. Then you're being taxed for your money twice: once for earning it, once for holding it. Comparing what they earn with what everyone else earns per year, they are more than carrying the burden they should be required to

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But that begs the question, is everyone else taxed on what they have in total as well? If I earn 50k in a year, but I have 6k saved in the bank, will I be taxed on 56k?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. Maybe my comment wasn't clear...I'm am AGAINST the idea of taxing on savings

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I never said you were for it. I was just asking if that's how it is. If it is, even if it's wrong, it's fair in the sense that everyone is being taxed the same way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah but that would be a super regressive tax and would have a disproportionate impact on the impoverished. Here's an example of why flat taxes are usually pretty bad. Take a person who's annual income before taxes is 200K and give him a 20% tax rate. His annual income after taxes becomes 160K. Sure that's quite a drop but in all honesty a person probably wouldn't have too hard of a time living on that. Now give someone who's only making 20K a year and apply that same flat tax and now they're only bringing in 16K. While that may not seem to be that much compared to the previous example, but just imagine what that money could mean. That might be a few months of rent, or groceries. That's the real danger of a flat tax

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Would you suggest a flat rate where everyone makes the same amount? Than can be just as, of not more, problematic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I mean, in an ideal would where people don't have this crazy feeling of self-entitlement to everything around them I think such a wage system would be great. But alas that's not the world we live in. Rather we should set up goalposts which essentially are like, "Once you've achieved 'X' much personal success, you should be contributing 'Y' amount to society." That systems works better in that it's not bestowing ALL individuals the "Y" amount, regardless of their status. You gotta be able to feed yourself before you can feed others type deal. Also it allows people to still enjoy their successes without feeling like they're getting robbed to such a great extent.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If they started making rich people pay more taxes then there would be less incentive to having well paid jobs like lawyers and doctors and all the things that are extremely important to have in society. Then no one would be rich and everyone would be dead and poor.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well...no...look at countries where the rich do may more taxes. That's not the case at all, in fact, with better education and welfare and a greater degree of social mobility, more people aspire to those roles because more people have the means to so so.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To bad we're not talking about other countries. This is America. Where going to school longer and paying more money for your education is only done in order to make more money. And why would you want to make more money if it just means you have to give more of it away than you would if you went to college for four years or less?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Because you would probably still have more money, even with higher taxes, than you would if you didn't have that high-paying job. You'd also have a higher degree of independence and the certain level of prestige that comes from having a good job. I'm not actually sure why higher education in the US costs such a ridiculously high amount compared to European countries. Perhaps some of the money from the higher taxes could be used to subsidise higher education? Just a thought.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If education was subsidized this would be a completely different story.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To encourage social mobility through education subsidies etc, we need a ton of money in the first place. We don't have enough, so to get more money we have to raise taxes. The poor can't afford to pay any more - the rich can. America's one of the richest countries on Earth and the way it treats its poor is terrible. So many people don't even have "the pursuit of happiness" due to shitty education and welfare, so something needs to change, and soon, before it gets overtaken by other countries.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not even going to bother starting an argument on the welfare topic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Fair enough. But there's only so far a debate about taxes can go without discussing how those taxes are going to be spent.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you're talking about the rich paying more taxes to support the 47% of the population that feed off the government for free than I am afraid this argument will never end.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're right, this argument will literally never end, we must end this now. But...I just have to get this out http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I dont even have to read that to know that the 47 percent isn't just those living off welfare but also college students and such. But thanks for that. It still doesn't make my statement any less relavent.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In 2008, out of the 10 states with most members on food stamps and welfare per citizen, 7 voted for McCain. Out of the 10 states that had the fewest per citizen, 7 voted for obama.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is called anti-progressivism. This just perpetuates the cycle of poverty. 10% of $20,000 can really effect a person barely making ends meet, while 10% of $200,000 is just a drop in the bucket.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

*Regressive

by Anonymous 11 years ago

nope, "anti" meaning that it counters the "progressive" method of taxing a population.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They shouldn't pay a higher PERCENT. They obviously should pay more money though...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think we should all pay the same percent. Coming from a middle class home, I don't believe wealthy people should be punished for being wealthy. They work just as hard, if not much much harder for their money (doctors going to school for many years, ect.)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think everyone should pay the same flat rate, and the only fluctuations should be from inflation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I dont think the whole "motivation to become wealthy" thing will ever really be a problem... I mean, which of these choices would you pick? You have 500 dollars, but you have to give away $50, or You have 100 dollars, but only have to give away $10 ...? Choice number one still ends up with alot more money even though it gives a greater amount away

by Anonymous 11 years ago

All taxes should be based on a flat percentage scale. The more you make, the more taxes you should have to pay.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I used to think that the rich should pay higher taxes, but then it was pointed out to me that that the higher the rich are taxed, the fewer people they employ in US. Romn ey is right about ONE thing- Closing Looppholes and Deductions. The ""Rich" have more deductions and execise loop holes (Creative financing) and get out of paying the taxes they should- SO rather than raising the tax on the rich, we take away their ability to evade them, and can then giuve relief to the middle income americans. Not sayin I love Romney- cause I don't, but that is one thing he is correct about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY3EQekIIXI

by Anonymous 11 years ago

well what do you define as "rich"? people making around $250,000 or do you mean millionaires and billionaires?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just wish ALL politicians paid their share of taxes.

by Anonymous 4 years ago