That's virtually slavery.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

a bit extreme. Even after paying that much tax, they have a handsome sum left over. It's not like they're gonna be poor or anything. Plus, these tax rates are usually progressive, in that they only apply to sums ABOVE a certain amount. The UK has this system. The top rate is 40% ish percent i think for 40,000 pounds a year. But only the sums over 40,000 are taxed at that rate - the money below is different.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Taking away 75% is saying that they don't deserve the money that they earned. You can say, "but they're still rich!" all you want but being rich doesn't mean you're not a hard worker and being poor doesn't mean you are one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It also doesn't change the fact the France is losing revenue. They may still be rich, but they're not rich FRENCH. Taxes, when too high, are bad for the society and government

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm objecting more to the sentiment of this post rather than the specifics of it. The super rich should pay more taxes because they use more resources. High tax brackets adversely affect the middle classes more than they do the richer ones

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is false. They have, in the US, 13% of the wealth, but pay 30% of the taxes, they're already paying above their "fair share"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If this were flagrantly and undeniably true, then there wouldn't BE any issue. And you didn't understand what I meant just now. What I was talking about was how high tax brackets in fact affect the middle classes more than they do the richer classes because they are a bigger financial burden.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but the upper class is also affected by higher taxes, it's not like they're just sitting on their money, they invest it. But we've already had this conversation on universal healthcare (thanks for keeping that particular debate civil). My problem is mainly the corporate tax rates. They should not exist because the cost is just going to be pushed down on the consumer. The French have recently raised them too. I do understand your point though and am not pushing it off to the side. I will debate it if you really want to

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I believe such a debate would be fairly circular. But ok! It's my opinion that striking a balance between making the rich pay their dues and not encouraging people to remain poor and idle is essential. It's a balance I believe quite firmly the UK always managed to achieve quite well. The concern with high tax brackets shouldn't be the rich, for they will remain rich! The main concern should be the burden on the MIDDLE classes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Tax rates on the rich used to be as high as 90%, at least in America. That was one of our most prosperous times.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What about Reagan? He cut the taxes drastically for all levels and economic activity exploded. That's what you look at to see what is the most prosperous time, not how much the country earns, or how much they buy, or how many entitlement programs are added. Of course if you have more money you can get more things but once people can't earn that money that you're taking it falls apart

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's a progressive tax rate, though. Not //all// of their income was taxed at 90%

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right. And it was also under Reagan the national debt ballooned and caused the USA to go from being the world's largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nobody paid that tax rate. There were hundreds of loopholes and tax shelters. And when Reagan cut taxes, government revenue reached record highs. It's called the Laffer Curve.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can see the logic in that - it's fine to have quite high taxes, but when you go too high, you just drive people away, it turns out to be counterproductive.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Im so tired of hearing this. Reagan days were not a period of prosperity for most Americans. His tax cuts favored the rich and it did not 'trickle down' I like Reagan because he brought down the soviets but his policies generally weren't that great

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The reason the debt ballooned under Reagan was because of a raw deal with (democratically held) congress where he asked them to cut spending. They told him for every dollar he raised taxes, they cut so much spending. Reagan held up his end but congress never did. He did as much as he could to get the debt lower. Like has been said, the cuts lead to massive economic activity and huge amounts of revenue. And people always say "Tax cuts favor the rich—that's bad!" Why? It's a well known fact that it takes money to make money meaning that for the rich to HIRE, reinvest in their business, and actually GROW the economy, we need to stop taking away all of their money. And just because the rich got tax cuts doesn't mean that everybody else didn't either. It doesn't even matter who got more cuts because they all did.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@ali_d: I'm aware of that. @pantherfanatic: Rich people have always found tax loopholes and continue to do so today even though their tax rates are as low as ever. That being said, I don't want anyone to pay 90% of any of their money to the government, but I think higher tax rates encourages rich people to reinvest their money in their businesses (where it can't be taxed), which is necessary for any kind of "trickle-down effect" to occur. When tax rates are low, rich people tend to take money from their businesses as personal profit and then avoid paying already-low taxes by finding tax loopholes or worse, hiding the money overseas. Finally, I believe Regan's effect on the economy has been far overblowm. The economy grew faster in the 1960s than the 1980s, and that was when tax rates on the rich were much higher.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Disprove dem apples http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucoP4-06O7M

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People don't understand...just because they have more than you doesn't mean that they are obligated to fund your social needs. I think that if you're going to tax one middle class family at one rate, that there is no reason to take a higher percentage from people higher up. We need to stop penalizing people for their success!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What about the reason that they have a lot of money and thus would still be fine if they lost a bit of it?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The main principle behind proportional taxes is that the richer use more resources, so they should pay more tax.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People also don't understand... with a flat rate percentage across all incomes, the rich guy still pays more. Let's say you had a low income family, middle class family, and an upper class family. Their incomes were 20,000, 50,000, and 100,000, respectively. If taxes were 10% for all of them, the low income family would pay 2,000, middle class family 5,000, and upper class family 10,000.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly. Guess how much of the nations taxes the top 1% pays. Almost 40%. Now you may be thinking thats because they have 40% (or more since you think they're getting such a break) of them wealth, but you'd be wrong. They own about 21% of the nations wealth. Meaning they are paying almost double what should be a fair tax rate for them. Shout out to @OccupyWallStreet @Harper, that's something so fundamentally wrong with the world today that you can justify taking away something that a person has worked their entire life for with the simple fact that "they have more"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah I know...it was a joke

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, not saying I'm the greatest comedian but it's been up voted plenty so...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If I know French people though, most of them won't be able to stay away from it all for TOO long. they love their own french soil so much they always end up going back there. They just hide all their money in Jersey and Switzerland, haha. The French love the smell of their own farts, there's no way they'll abandon france permanently.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I like how farting can somehow be relative to every conversation.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is a bit unrelated, but this is why I hate progressive taxing. I don't think it is a fair system. Yes, people who make more money can afford to pay higher taxes, but //usually// they also work a lot more and a lot harder so they deserve more to pay off their hardwork. Someone who makes $100k a year, very likely, went to college and works a 9-5 job, whereas someone who makes $20k probably didn't go to college. In //my opinion//, all taxing should be flat.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly, but it's not that one guy went to college and the other didn't. It's that there's no accurate way to gauge how hard a person worked for their money.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think you can pretty much assess it on whether they still have the job, you know? Like, they can't be doing a complete shit job if they're still there, getting paid tons of money.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously never heard of Unions. You can be utterly worthless to a company, but it still will keep you to avoid backlash from Unions.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The main point about progressive taxation is that the rich use more resources, so should pay more tax. It works when you think of the really rich, heads of corporations and whatnot, but in fact this type of taxation really hits the middle classes hard. I'm from a middle class family, and this type of tax is really really crippling to us. The rich can pay people to conceal their wealth, move it about, make it all look legit. The middle classes can't do that, so we get stuck with big taxes and have to pay them. I'm not against the idea though, since it's motives are fair in the end. It just needs a lot of tweaking and development

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Should the rich pay for it with income tax? I mean resources would be //purchased// (not earned) by the rich and therefore a sales tax would cover that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right, this is why it's more complex than it seems. The ideal tax system is one that can really figure out how much one takes away from society while making their money. It's also a little bit of a fallacy to assume that the rich are "job creators" - they do create employment that's for sure, but for the most part these jobs are dead-end ones, offering next to no long-term prospect or benefit to anyone. It's a double-edged sword either way. What you're saying is right. But, personally I do think the rich should pay a higher bracket of tax, but at the same time, the system can be made more flexible to help them benefit in other ways.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

From my perspective, countries are ran like businesses. If a country starts doing things its citizens (customers) don't agree with, then they will leave... unless of course they're under control of a dictator or something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

IMHO, social democracy offers the best of both worlds. You can create a free enterprising business world, while maintaining some measure of regulation to protect people, especially smaller businesses. Deregulation was a disaster in the long term, it just leads to boom and bust. There needs to be regulation, but as with over de-regulation, there can be over-regulation. All these things need balance. It's amazing to me that we still have so many polarized views in the world battling out to be best, when in truth all these extreme views are deeply flawed and problematic! Only through compromise and balance can we really achieve things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@anon Hence "pretty much".

by Anonymous 11 years ago