-54

You don't support Obama trying to raise taxes on the wealthy to make America "fair", amirite?

28%Yeah You Are72%No Way
AtheisticMystics avatar
Share
0 20
The voters have decided that AtheisticMystic is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Personally, I don't want to see the wealthy pay more (as in a higher percentage) - I just want to see them pay the same percentage as those in a lower tax bracket. There's no reason that a millionaire should pay a lower percentage than his secretary.

Anonymous +5Reply

I believe he proposed a 30% tax on millionaires. So for every $100 they make, the government takes $30. That's shit.

AtheisticMystics avatar AtheisticMystic Yeah You Are +1Reply
@AtheisticMystic I believe he proposed a 30% tax on millionaires. So for every $100 they make, the government takes $30. That's shit.

hmmm, at the moment Federal income tax is 35% on income over $390,500.00
Fixed amount is $112,683.50 plus 35% of amount over $390,500.00
source: http://www.businessbookkeeper.n...taxes-2012.php

So, 30% on millionaires.... may be misunderstanding

Okay atheisticMystic that is totally incorect its .3% not 30% and i think its totally fair if you have more money s=you should have to contribute more since you have more to spare. you can live in normal houses like the rest of the world and let the people who live in crap holes live in normal houses.

@DuffLogic Okay atheisticMystic that is totally incorect its .3% not 30% and i think its totally fair if you have more money...

So we have two different people: One making $30,000/yr vs. someone making $300,000/yr. Let's say we tax them both 10%. The first one pays $3,000 in taxes and the second one pays $30,000 which means with a flat rate tax, the rich guy is paying more.
To clarify: $3,000 < $30,000

If you ever took the time to look at a tax bracket, you'd see that the higher income a person makes, the higher percentage of taxes they pay. So using my example incomes above, the guy who made $30,000 would pay 15%, which is $4500 in taxes. The evil rich guy who totally doesn't deserve any of his money would be paying around 35%, or $105,000 in taxes. I think it's completely understandable why the rich try to get tax breaks.

"They'll still have money left over for fancy homes and stuff," is not justification to increase their taxes. They earned the money so they should keep it.

StickCavemans avatar StickCaveman Yeah You Are +9Reply
@StickCaveman So we have two different people: One making $30,000/yr vs. someone making $300,000/yr. Let's say we tax them both...

That's not how tax brackets work. The guy make 300,000 would not be paying 35% on all of his money. For the first 30,000 or whatever he'd be paying the 15% just like the lower income person, then for the next chunk of money he'd be paying a little bit more and so on, only his last chunk of money would be taxed at 35%.

Marys avatar Mary No Way +1Reply
@Mary That's not how tax brackets work. The guy make 300,000 would not be paying 35% on all of his money. For the first...

You got me. I was trying to keep things simple but it turned out to be pretty misleading. However, to make up for it I've included a nifty spreadsheet...

http://ctrlv.in/126476

As you can see, the taxes would be around $83,897 which is still much more money than the person with the $30,000 income has to pay for taxes. Some other factors to consider are property taxes (the wealthy man is more likely to own more property), state income taxes, social security, sales taxes, etc.

Source of tax rates: http://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable

StickCavemans avatar StickCaveman Yeah You Are +1Reply
@DuffLogic Okay atheisticMystic that is totally incorect its .3% not 30% and i think its totally fair if you have more money...

.3% tax? There's no way that's right. That would do nothing. And no, you shouldn't have to contribute more because you have more. If you won the lottery and became a millionaire, you'd want the government to take that away from you and give it to the homeless? Without your consent?

AtheisticMystics avatar AtheisticMystic Yeah You Are +4Reply
@DuffLogic Okay atheisticMystic that is totally incorect its .3% not 30% and i think its totally fair if you have more money...

This is what's wrong with America. Just because you have more, it doesn't mean you're obligated to give anything to anyone. Of course it's a good person who does give, but you shouldn't have to. Thats capitalism. Competition. Some people have more, and good for them!

kristins avatar kristin Yeah You Are +2Reply

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, an equal percentage does seem fair. If you've worked hard to earn your money, then you shouldn't have to pay more for just having a higher paying job.
However, for people in a lower income bracket, a greater percentage of their income goes to simply sustaining themselves: paying for food, electricity, gas, water, etc. While at 25% tax rate may seem bearable to someone making hundreds of thousands a year, this can devastate someone living paycheck to paycheck. For this reason, I think the increased tax rate for those with the ability to pay is a decent system. Of course it has flaws, and should not be taken to the extreme, but it seems fair when you consider what people have left after paying for necessities.

tldr; Any tax system will have flaws, but there is a good reason for the higher income/higher percentage system America has in place. At least that's my two cents :)

@AppleTree I have mixed feelings. On one hand, an equal percentage does seem fair. If you've worked hard to earn your money...

From what you said, it sounds like the logical solution would be lowering the percentage that poor people have to pay, not increasing the percentage that rich people pay.

@AtheisticMystic From what you said, it sounds like the logical solution would be lowering the percentage that poor people have to...

That would be one way, I suppose. But the government provides basic services across the board that need funding somehow. If the money doesn't come from the people within the society, where will it come from?

@AppleTree That would be one way, I suppose. But the government provides basic services across the board that need funding...

They get enough money to provide those basic services as it is. If they would just stop handing out money, food, phones, and housing left and right, they'd save more than enough to spend on the basic services.

@AtheisticMystic They get enough money to provide those basic services as it is. If they would just stop handing out money, food...

I'll give you the phones point. If the government is handing out phones to people, that seems unnecessary. However, at least in my opinion, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and low income housing are imperative. I will openly admit that there are scores of people who take advantage of this system, but the benefits far out weigh the costs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/st...ryId=128449659

"A study by Moody's Analytics recently found that every dollar spent by the government on benefits for the unemployed produces an overall return of $1.61 for the economy." (from above link)

And this is just speculation, but I think it is cheaper in the long run to give people the push they need to get back on their feet than have them waste away on the street, sucking up funds from Emergency Rooms and such.

Not only that, but I'd rather have a society that takes care of people down on their luck, rather than abandon them on the streets. You hear stories everyday about families that depend on food stamps just to get enough calories to survive, and not by any fault of their own.

I don't really know how it's going to work in America, but in Australia we have a system so that you pay the same amount on $X as everyone else, but every dollar you earn over that is taxed more, and so on up to about $200000. If someone wants to correct me on the specifics, go ahead. I don't pay tax, so I don't really know.

Here's a table though:
http://ctrlv.in/126428
You'll have to click on it, I don't know why it isn't showing up.

I think if you earn over $300,000/£300,000 a year then paying more tax isn't that bad.

I personally don't think the tax bracket system for anyone earning under that is fair, though. Someone earning £40k is taxed more than someone earning £20k, which is really unfair. If you earn £40k, you probably have earned that salary. If you earn £20k, it's likely you're working at a lower level than the £40k earner.

My family's income is about £40k - £50k (without taxes) and we still have to watch our money carefully. We don't have any cash to spare.

I come from the perspective of someone whose reasons for not voting for Obama are completely different from what is being implied in the post. I am not voting for Obama because he has threatened war against Iran, and he has been carrying out drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And also because he supported the National Defense Authorization Act. And numerous other reasons.

To the people who say that the rich people earn the right to have more money than the poor because they worked harder for that money: Okay, so you're trying to tell me that a person who has a shitty job working in a meatpacking facility and suffering numerous injuries on the job, just to take home a small amount of pay that barely covers the cost of living, is not working hard? (just as an example) Most of the rich obtained their money from exploitation of the working class.

Plus we need to look at the government's spending priority: An excessive amount is spent on military while public schools and health care do not receive as much funding and are often neglected.

@MusicIsAGift I come from the perspective of someone whose reasons for not voting for Obama are completely different from what is...

Poor people that work shitty jobs work hard, yes. But to be in that position, they've obviously made pretty bad choices in life. Why should the rich have to pay extra because they made good choices and other people made bad choices?

AtheisticMystics avatar AtheisticMystic Yeah You Are -2Reply
@AtheisticMystic Poor people that work shitty jobs work hard, yes. But to be in that position, they've obviously made pretty bad...

This is one argument that I really don't like. I don't know nearly enough about the inner workings of bureaucracy to have a strong opinion on the details of taxes and such, but I know that not all poor people, in fact only a very small amount, actually made bad decisions that landed them in their position.

Yes, there will always be drug addicts and gamblers and such that squandered away their money and must now work a minimum wage job. But the majority of those in the lower brackets of society are there because of outside circumstances (being born in poverty, facing a severe and expensive family illness, etc.) that make it incredibly difficult to move up in financial class. How are you supposed to spend the time and money to get the resources to better your situation when you're using everything you've got just to survive day to day?

It's not a news article, but just something I think is interesting: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-t...ut-being-poor/

Anonymous