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.
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
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.
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
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?
No. Maybe my comment wasn't clear...I'm am AGAINST the idea of taxing on savings
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.
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
Would you suggest a flat rate where everyone makes the same amount? Than can be just as, of not more, problematic.
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.
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.
See comment above
They worked for their money. They are no different from the rest of us, why could we charge them different for the same thing?
They're not necessarily paying more, just a higher percentage. They still have more.
Exactly as swimlax said. Because otherwise you'd have Bill Gates pay the same dollar amount as a 19 year old waitress.
I don't know if you're aware, but that's not how our tax system works...
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.
They shouldn't pay more of a percentage is what I agree with.
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."
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.
...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."
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:
I don't know if you just misread or what...because I DON'T support the rich paying a higher percentage.
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.
Rich people keep a closer eye on their money than the poor cause they've got further to fall.
And also they've got a higher standard of living so they would miss it just as much as anyone.
Except there really isn't a difference between the standard of living one is accustomed to from being a multimillionaire and being a billionaire. Warren Buffett can donate 99% of his 46 billion dollars and still be able to buy whatever he wants.
You're right, he can. And because of that, the government totally has the right to take away anything extra that he doesn't need.
While we're at it, you don't seem to be needing that coffee maker, TV, stove, and the other car you have that isn't a necessity for simple living. So let's take those and give them away to those who don't have them.
Just because you're more "fortunate".
Forget that you worked hard for and earned them, you just seem to be able to do fine without them.
What the fuck is the difference between 60 million dollars and 55 million dollars?
5 million dollars.
To be fair, that would only be 12% income tax.
I'm going to actually assume I failed horribly and that's on the low side.
I'm terribly ignorant about this sort of thing, although I think my point was still obvious, after a while money becomes kind of useless for an individual.
They shouldn't pay a higher PERCENT. They obviously should pay more money though...
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.)
With how fucked over poor people are in America and how shitty the welfare, healthcare and social service systems are...oh yes.
Then work for your money. Kind of like how they did?
It's not supposed to be easy. No one ever said it was. In fact, the social welfare system is easy and also sucks money right out of the economy. And hard work promises success, not unbelievable wealth. To get that you have to do something different. You need to innovate and create. That's why America is so wealthy. We have done what others can't. If you are a janitor, albeit the hardest working janitor that ever lived, at the end of the day you're still a janitor.
Except a great number of the wealthiest Americans contribute less to society than your average garbageman. And a great number of them inherited ridiculous sums of money (and, as a sidenote, the government should be taxing the fuck out of inheritances). And the rest of them, those few who didn't come from wealthy families and didn't just make money gambling on the money of others, still started off with something that set them apart from that hard working janitor. Most obviously, they were just born with a superior intelligence.
And whaddaya know? Those wealthy Americans, the Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates's, who got to where they are on their own, allowing their actions stand as a testament to their intelligence, are some of the most vocal people to increasing taxes on their own economic class!
How or why they earn the money has nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the matter. Even if its inheritance, that money was earned by someone way-back-when and the government has no more right to that money any more than the janitor's. And a teacher of mine once said "If you're a chunky monkey, there's a good chance your parents were chunky monkies too. But in order to stay a chunky monkey, you have to eat quite a bit." Draw whatever conclusion you may
And I don't know about you but I don't think it's a good idea for everyone to be on an equal playing field. If someone is born smarter...good for them! Whatever you may think about this, the argument that makes the least amount of sense is that they should be punished for this.
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.
nope, "anti" meaning that it counters the "progressive" method of taxing a population.
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
All taxes should be based on a flat percentage scale. The more you make, the more taxes you should have to pay.
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.
well what do you define as "rich"?
people making around $250,000 or do you mean millionaires and billionaires?
I think everyone should pay the same flat rate, and the only fluctuations should be from inflation.
I thought rich people were dying for the government to tax them more.
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.
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.
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?
And even if at 10% Jack is paying 100 times more than John it still seems ok to make him pay 10% extra? I don't think so.
And again why would someone be driven to become rich if they will be punished for it with unfair taxes.
2,000 vs 400,000. Which would you give.
That's not the point. The point is that someone who went to school longer, paid more for their education, works equally hard if not harder, and makes a decent amount of money should not be forced to pay more taxes. What I'm getting at is why would someone willingly spend that much time and money on an education if they will only have to continue to pay for it after they are out of school?
OK I have been ignoring this for most of the conversation, but 2,000,000 is not a believable yearly income. 200,000 is what most upper class people in America are paid per year. But I am curious, are you in college right now?
So that's a no. So obviously you don't really understand how hard it is to pay for classes, books, housing, and food while you're a student. You're basically relying on your parents and a part time job to get by and maybe some student loans. It's expensive. Which is probably why the people who only make 20,000 a year didn't bother going to college, or if they did then didn't bother getting a degree in something worth while. But if you choose to go to a good university and then to med school, paying off your student loans the second you graduate probably wouldn't be that easy. So what's the point? To make good money and maybe to something you love, but mostly to make good money. But if you are doing this to make money and the only result is that you get your ass kicked with taxes then is it really worth it?
It's your opinion vs. mine. Obviously I don't want to be poor after I graduate and I am not going to lie just to prove a point. But the truth is neither of us will really understand the value of money until we are making our own. I am just reiterating what I know are commonly stated opinions of those who do make a lot of money.
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.
If education was subsidized this would be a completely different story.
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.
I'm not even going to bother starting an argument on the welfare topic.
Fair enough. But there's only so far a debate about taxes can go without discussing how those taxes are going to be spent.
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.
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/8301-503...rcent-comment/
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.
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.
So your saying that an upper class citizen giving away 200,000 dollars isn't enough compared to a middle class citizen giving 2,000? It seems perfectly reasonable that everyone pays the same percent to me. What I'm trying to say is that it hardly seems fair for rich people to be punished for being rich.
I don't think anybody could easily say that 10 million dollars "doesn't matter". Even if you do have a lot more where that came from its still a shit ton of money that you worked hard to make.