It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why punish the rich with more taxes? AKA equal taxes or none at all!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I am by no means rich, but I have a question: Why should the rich be punished (and I do see it as a form of punishment) with a greater amount of taxes simply because they are wealthier than most of us "regular" people? This is so stupid! We should either have equal taxes for all (which means taxing the wealthy using the same standards as us "regular" folks, as the opposite would never work) or none at all! Why tax the wealthy more? I bet the same people that state that taxes are illegal desire more taxes for the rich
. Sure this idea makes sense, but I don't want to punish people simply because they have more money than I could ever have. This is how I feel about all of this. How about you?




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
You can't have equality in an immoral nation. An equal tax would make us all equals and that's wrong. (LOL)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
You can't have equality in an immoral nation. An equal tax would make us all equals and that's wrong. (LOL)


Maybe you are correct. So you agree with me?





posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I have always wondered that.Equal justice under the law.Doesn't mean much when it comes to tax law. A flat tax starting at $20,000 dollars with no deductions for people or corporations.The government would have more money than they would know what to do with.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I agree with you. I'm not rich either, far from it really, but I see no point in punishing those who are. The only problem I see is that we have to raise taxes to pay off the national debt. No way around that, they have to be raised. The rich are better able to pay more, simply because they have more. But I would think, and I could be wrong, that if everyone's taxes were raised by X amount it would be fair. More fair than raising taxes only for the rich anyway.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by they see ALL
 


I agree with you. It is not fair, but nor are many things.

The Fair Tax proposal seems, well, fair. The details need to be worked out ( at least in my own head) to determine what tax rate that would be. I've read,
maybe on ATS, about 23% is what each dollar we spend now is the amount of all taxes from the manufacturer thru consumer.

Would that work? I say again, I need to work it out for myself.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by pyrytyes]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I have always wondered that.Equal justice under the law.Doesn't mean much when it comes to tax law.


Good point.


A flat tax starting at $20,000 dollars with no deductions for people or corporations.The government would have more money than they would know what to do with.


Great idea, especially when one considers that the wealthy get tax cuts and etc., while the rest of us do not. This may work!


Originally posted by Jenna
I agree with you.


Nice!


he only problem I see is that we have to raise taxes to pay off the national debt. No way around that, they have to be raised. The rich are better able to pay more, simply because they have more.


I have an idea: Let the Fed pump money to pay for this national debt. Oh wait, then there will be more debt, as the U.S. Government would have to pay interest on that money that the Fed creates
. Paying taxes for this dumb policy is idiotic (whether the national debt is from the Fed or not)!


But I would think, and I could be wrong, that if everyone's taxes were raised by X amount it would be fair. More fair than raising taxes only for the rich anyway.


That would be fair and might work!





posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyrytyes
Would that work? I say again, I need to work it out for myself.


Work it out and report back
.





posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by they see ALL
 


Actually, I'd like to see all the slaves freed and not have any of their labor stolen /taxed. I'm for a VAT on ALL non essential items (i.e. you want an iPod, fine, just add $300 tax to your total cost).



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
I'm for a VAT on ALL non essential items (i.e. you want an iPod, fine, just add $300 tax to your total cost).


VAT? Woah, I don't know about that. I like my luxuries
!





posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
the rich either pay higher tax on their income or lose business/income because poor people are paying more tax and consuming less. it amounts to the same difference.

there is no win/win situation when a countries economical situation is as dire as yours.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Maybe tax us equally if we were all paid equally.

Rich people are rich but wouldn't be rich without there average joe average paid eomployer working under them now right.

We all do our work to try and provide in society. Farmers grow us the food we need, miners mine the minerals we need, police inforce the laws we need, people in textiles provide the clothes to warm us, labours and engineers provide the work to build infrastuctures, etc etc.

The point is we all share the work loads in maintaining our society and with out these key jobs we would collapse. Why not reward us equally. Granted there are a #loads of jobs that are utterly useless. Thats a by product of a monetary system where you have to have a job, regardless of how meaningless and possibly detrimental to the environment.

Besides # this hurtin system and way of life we have, it's so flawed lol we have no direction or goal as a species.

Where's the drive to secure ourselves in these cosmos. The most dedicated funds of money and taxes seem to be destroying ourselves in war. Awesome legacy. Way to go Homo's ( abb. for homo sapiens)



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Maybe it's time the rich did the heavy lifting for a while eh?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodshipForAll
Rich people are rich but wouldn't be rich without there average joe average paid eomployer working under them now right.


What about the businessman who sells something, that his/her father sold in the past, and has much wealth from this business? This person may have some people working under him or her, but the number of employees is about ten or less. Why should this person be punished for having a successful business? Do you see where I am going? Not all businesses are corrupt/evil or whatever. Taxes are punishments!




[edit on 30-10-2008 by they see ALL]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Some people may argue that it is for the "greater good" and that the rich should be willing to sacrifice because well......can the rich just help us out a little? -

But imagine you're the guy that is not born rich, and struggled from a third world country, then comes to the united states, starts off a low paying job, then successfully rises to the top from ambition and determination.

Now your rich, but you're asked to give up portions to taxes, even though you have worked very hard to get where you are, you end up getting punished for your hard work.....unfair? a little.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
It wasn't that long ago that I would have agreed with you. After all, getting rich is what the American dream is all about, right?

But as I began to study the economy and how it really worked, I realized something: capitalism is flawed! Now, before anyone gets all bent out of shape, I am not suggesting we revert to communism or socialism or anything that drastic. All I am saying is that the inherent checks and balances of a capitalistic economy have limitations that are sometimes inadequate for extreme situations. For example, few would state that we need to stop all help help for the poor, even though I believe most people not on welfare are unhappy with the way present welfare works. The reason is that disaster can occur to anyone, and it is uncivilized to not provide some means for people to survive when a terrible situation is not of their own doing. But welfare in any form is anti=capitalism. Capitalism in its purest form would demand that the unfortunate be relegated to a (short) life of abject poverty.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is runaway profit. As one's income increases past a certain point, they begin to be able to purchase things that should not be for sale: political favors, stock market manipulation, and other advantages that can make a mockery of the concept of 'free trade'. This is why we have laws against monopolies, to stop the power of a corporation from becoming so great that it alone effectively controls an entire section of the economy. They are also able to use their wealth as a means of producing income itself, through investment. this makes the further acquisition of wealth easier, almost effortless for those in the very highest economic tier.

Tariffs have been used by many countries in different historical eras throughout history. They are a punishment on goods produced in other countries through the use of a special tax. Yet their purpose is not to squelch trade, but to balance it. Other countries may have a distinct advantage economically which translates into insurmountable competition for domestic companies, and the use of tariffs to artificially raise their prices to a more competitive level keeps both foreign and domestic companies in level competition. (Wouldn't it be nice if we did that today to keep jobs at home?)

A progressive tax system works along the same principle. Taxes are used, not to punish the wealthy, but to slow their growth when capitalism is no longer able to provide the checks and balances which are inherent on free trade. The problem we face is not a fault of the progressive taxation system we have in place, but rather a result of uncontrolled governmental spending and antiquated taxation levels.

At the rate our government spends our money, no taxation system will ever be able to adequately fund it. there is simply not enough money available. And considering that the vast majority of the money in this country is made by a precious small percentage of the population, the lower income level population cannot even make a dent in the budget. Only those who are wealthy have the means to pay enough to fund our ever-increasing appetite for socialistic programs.

Also, consider for a moment two people of differing means: Joe makes $20,000 a year, while Richie makes $2,000,000 a year. Let's say that the tax rate is 25% (which is much lower than it would need to be with a level tax system). Joe pays $5000, leaving him with only $15,000 to live on. Richie pays much more, $500,000, but still has $1,500,000 each year for his lifestyle. Who wins? Obviously Richie still has plenty of wealth at his disposal and probably doesn't have to hold a regular job; at that rate, his investments no doubt make plenty of cash for him. But poor Joe is eating Pork 'N' Beans 6 nights a week while trying to find a second job.

Now let's look at something a little more present: Joe and Richie make the same amount, but now Joe, after deductions are counted in, pays maybe $500 per year in taxes. He still has $19,500 each year to cover his needs. Richie, on the other hand, is now paying close to 40% tax, which comes to $800,000 per year, leaving him with $1,200,000 left... still much much more than poor Joe, who actually gets to have a decent meal every night now.

You also have to remember that the wealthy find making money much much easier than the poor. Many options such as stock market portfolios, commodity futures, venture capital investments, are all open to he who has money to invest, creating more wealth with no real effort. So while Joe's measly $500 is about 25 hours of work, the time spent by Richie to make $800,000 is probably about the same. So based on hourly effort, there is really no difference.

That's not to say we should over-tax the rich... we must cut spending (and therefore all taxes) or our economy will cut it for us in a massive collapse (which is probably unavoidable now, to be honest). But taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy is not the answer - it is more problems.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
But imagine you're the guy that is not born rich, and struggled from a third world country, then comes to the united states, starts off a low paying job, then successfully rises to the top from ambition and determination.

Now your rich, but you're asked to give up portions to taxes, even though you have worked very hard to get where you are, you end up getting punished for your hard work.....unfair? a little.


My point exactly! When people think of "the wealthy" they usually, I am sure, think of the super wealthy, the people of conspiracy theories and etc. I am sure that there are more of the work-to-get-to-the-top type of wealthy people than the one that are born into wealth and the ones who are super-wealthy. We definitely should not have higher taxes for people who may have put in more work than us in life. Maybe that's it. Maybe the people who desire to put more taxes on the wealthy are jealous of the wealthy
.





posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by they see ALL
 


Im just stating imo the monetary system is bull#.

It's not profitable or economical in securing our species and saving lives now is it.

There should be salary caps.

I can't wait for a world where technology is unsuppressed but thats not profitable either.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Ya man good post and great points.....


hey see ALL

What about the farm labouring sweating and breaking his back to provide you and the rich food to eat.....thats not hard work, or miners and lumber jacks..... we all need it yet they are rewarded accroding to whom..
whom dictates the value of what we need and the money we are rewarded with?.... eachother..... half the people i know are dumb #s lol

What about how we import food from countries with high starvation rates...
Rich people to that to earn higher profits....the extort people to earn capital..



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But taxing the poor at the same rate as the wealthy is not the answer - it is more problems.


That's not my idea. Maybe we can all pay a low tax. Maybe the Fed can help with the rest
!





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join