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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




The second reason is that the basic necessities of society life (shelter, food, gas, electricity, etc) cost the same, whether you make $18,000 a year or $300,000 a year.


This I always thought was one of the best arguments! I have a friend who is a programmer at Microsoft and makes $100,000 year plus nice benefits. Even this salary (which he earns through hard work and brilliance) is difficult to support a wife, kid, car, house etc here in Seattle. Once you reach about 200,000 things become a lot less stressful in regards to a house with multiple bedrooms (for a family), a reliable car, food, utilities etc.

Star for you Heretic. Plus one for the Dude, Redneck, and 44. Great posts guys!




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by they see ALL
 


You have a point there.

The problem is this: Life wasn't made equally for everyone.

People will take advantage of that and raise themselves to be above others in one way or another. It's an innate thing. You can see it in the animal kingdom - which we are part of



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
2. Its also irrelevant that commodity costs are the same. By that logic I could argue that the rich spend more on food such as champagne and cigars, and that their costs are thus higher and they deserve a bigger tax break.


But you don't NEED champagne and cigars to SURVIVE.


Now why should a rich family have to divest or diffuse their wealth across a wider population just because the poor tend to have more children?


I TOTALLY agree. Something should be done about breeding.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I am all for equal taxation.
What I am against is the wealthy being given preferential treatment by any government, simply because a majority of those in power are in that bracket and want to pay as little as possible themselves.

They are there to work for the majority, the nation, not themselves and their cronies.

Having said that, I do believe that there can be a point when a person (or corporation) becomes so insanely wealthy that they hold too much power and are sitting on too much wealth. I'm talking the kinds of figures where you'd run out of zeros.
It's plain greed and thirst for power.
A part of me wants to say that they should pay more, because they have more to give. But that would just encourage those mega-rich to leave and continue under another more forgiving government elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


True, true.

Perhaps even under any taxation system, there should be allowances (and possibly even negative allowances) for tax deduction for basics such as petrol, food etc.

This would mean that the basics that people need are not taxed at all (ie they need to be allowed to allocate a portion directly from their income without any tax levied).

I agree that the struggle is harder for the poor man; but aren't we assuming that the rich man didn't struggle at all to make his home? What if the rich man was previously a poor man who worked hard enough to accumulate labour units (ie money), and consequently became rich. I dont think its moral to take away his hard earned money at any cost, even if it is to help another struggling man.

I dont think the way is for the rich man to pay for the poor man's food. I think the rich man should provide employment and education to the poor man so that the poor man may better his own condition enough to provide food for his own family. Small difference in policy, big difference in outcome!

Most importantly however, I think that there is already intrinsic fairness in the concept of the percentage. Unfairness would be where each man had to pay 10,000 a year to the government regardless of his income. Then you could say that the poor man has to buy food, clothes and a home and still struggle to pay his tax share whereas the rich man can sneeze out the money in a second.

However a percentage tax means that a poor man is essentially paying within his means; and the rich man is contributing more nominally but the same in percentage terms. This is why it stings to see that the rich are taxed at an even higher percentage, which is essentially a levy upon success.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Well, its only fair, the wealthiest are stripping away everything in the middle and lower classes. Ever read about the huge numbers filling up tent cities nationwide? Not likely though its happening. Ever hear about how families are split apart to various relatives so they can all keep a roof over their head? Not likely. Brand new homes in my neighborhood are being built with 2 master suites in anticipation of multifamily use. Does that make the news? Nopity nopity neeew! So, here is why its fair. When the poor and middle class are beat to S*#@ and back and we've taken all the money we can from them, its time to wear out the rich. THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MONEY PEOPLE!!!! Our government is bankrupt and is facing an IMF/World Bank takeover. Think they won't takeover private pensions to fund their liabilities? Corporations are already begging them to do that very thing. Why? Because the poor dears just can't afford to stay in business if they have to pay out on their pension obligations.


PG



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveins
Maybe it's time the rich did the heavy lifting for a while eh?


you do realize that the top 1% pay 37% of the taxes, right? Also, add the next top 9% and you have the top 10% paying 68% of the taxes.

Here is a little more reading on this:

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
people here talk about whats "fair" but our system has never been fair. The rich have more political power, and democracy can never exist in a land where one person has more ability to influence legislation due to personal wealth. Taxation was originally levied upon income, and income at the time was defined as money made from investments, therefore only the rich payed income tax as our forefathers had the insight to understand it is immoral to tax people who are working with sweat on their backs to provide subsistance, not growth. The rich, in our "fair" system have used their monetary leverage to turn those taxes about, so now the balance of the taxes are on the middle class, including the working poor.

Other people here talk about survival of the fittest, but in a system where those who are most rewarded are NOT those who contribute to their fellow man, but rather those who best manipulate the system, the kinds of attributes you are trying to evolve are manipulation and greed, and i cant see how extolling these as the greatest measurement of success can be helpful for our environment, our people, or our future. That quite obviously leads to a society divided into a large group of poor laborours, and a small group of massively greedy and massively wealthy owners. Anyone who thinks that this small wealthy greedy group is the best option for securing a future for humanity is not thinking clearly.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer

I dont think the way is for the rich man to pay for the poor man's food. I think the rich man should provide employment and education to the poor man so that the poor man may better his own condition enough to provide food for his own family. Small difference in policy, big difference in outcome!

That got you a star.


I think what we are seeing here are two issues: the progressive tax system (which increases taxation percentages on the wealthiest, and the unfairness of our present tax system. I see the two as separate issues, even though we at present have both.

The problem with our present system (and here I speak of both taxation and social welfare programs; they are inextricably intertwined) is that no amount of taxation can cover the cost of allowing lower income people to remain lower income and continue to draw on the government as some sort of bank. Welfare is a needed socialistic safety net, but that safety net can easily become a hammock if it is not operated under the principles of capitalism. Did anyone reading this get up this morning and think "I really am glad I have to go to work today; I can't wait to get there!"? I doubt it. We work because we have to in order to support ourselves and get the rewards (money, toys, a fine house, a nice car) that good job performance is supposed to provide.

When it is far more profitable to get on a government program than it is to work for a living, we have a problem. No one wants to go to work every day, and if the pay is not superior to the money one gets from sitting at home and relying on government, then too many people will sit at home. Each one of them will draw a check every month for their 'necessities', while someone has to pay for those 'necessities' (and yes, I realize those 'necessities are often more lavish than what a lot of hard-working people have to get by with). As more people begin to draw money out of the government, the fewer people who are left will have to contribute more. And as taxation rises to extreme levels to pay for this imbalance, more people will sit at home and even less will have to pay more. It is a vicious spiral that is the result when too much socialism is mixed with capitalism. And it is where we (the US) are now.

Welfare at present is far too hard to get on and far too easy to remain on. It should be the opposite, easy to get help, but hard to keep getting that help for a lifetime and hard to receive anything more than the basic necessities for life and job acquisition once on it. We tend to throw money at a problem, but in the case of welfare, people do not need money; they need food, shelter, water, and a chance to improve themselves. If they want money or luxuries (TV, private telephone, a car), they can use assistance in preparing for a job, finding a job, and getting to and from that job to make money to buy these things with.

If we ran welfare that way, instead of simply sending out government checks in this vast wealth re-distribution scheme we call welfare today, the cost to the government would drop, allowing us to drop taxes on everybody, the number of drug- and gang-related crimes would drop because there would be less people with idle time on their hands, the number of slums would drop, because there would be no more living in a house for 30 years while it fell down around one's ears, and there would be a better, more well-trained workforce to bring our jobs back home to.

And we could quit arguing over two problems at once, and concentrate on a single problem.


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregarious
If our government actually followed the law, our Constitution says the Federal Government is the only body with the right to issue currency.


I know, I've seen 'Zeitgeist.'


Originally posted by MC esher
The problem here is that the rich can afford lawyers to find loop holes and investments that make their gains look like losses.


Yes, I've heard of something like this.


Originally posted by Scramjet76
The answer is quite simple. Because they are rich. Who else are you going to tax?


Tax us all equally, or don't have any taxes. Or let the government pay taxes
.


My repsonse is do you think these folks would be that wealthy if they didn't have people working for them? It is a two-sided coin my friend.


No, not all cases involve wealthy people having many "regular" people working for them. Consider my previous example in a previous post. And what of the inventor who made million by merely creating an invention? This person may or may not have workers and might not even sell the thing, but just made money by creating this one thing. What of this example?


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Just because the rich can afford to be taxed at a higher rate, doesnt necessarily mean its moral to do so.


Exactly!


Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Howabout a 20% tax on everyone. NO loopholes. NO exceptions. (and no cpa's, either!)

Taxing people differently is TREATING them differently. What's next, separate tax rates for minorities, gays, christians, muslims, accountants, lawyers, etc.....?


Great idea and great point
.


Originally posted by marg6043
I have no problem with those that make more money to pay more taxes.


If one were wealthy, he or she might think the opposite. It's all relative really.


Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
But he's AGAINST a flat tax. Because it "wouldn't be fair to the poorest americans."

Lovely, isn't it?


F'ing stupid, that's what it is. Great story!


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't see it as punishment. I see it as the wealthy have been living pretty well for a long time. If they want to continue to live well and provide for their families with European trips and private planes, they had better chip in to help keep the rest of us alive. Or our economy will continue to fail and they will fall as well.


You are talking of the mega wealthy, right? What of my example of the inventor who just happened to make a product that everyone needs?


Originally posted by frayed1
Why is it so evil to expect the 'rich' to pay taxes?


Nothing. That's not what we are discussing here.


Why shouldn't they share the upkeep of the country that they live in?


They should, but not more than us "regular" people. You mentioned a great story, but why punish the rich because of a broken system. It's not their fault that they can list deductions, it's the system's for not checking if these are legitimate deductions (of course, though, they may be at fault for knowingly doing it). Would you punish a child if you put an opened cookie jar on the floor where he or she can easily get at it? No, that would be the parent's fault for being idiotic!


Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I agree that the struggle is harder for the poor man; but aren't we assuming that the rich man didn't struggle at all to make his home? What if the rich man was previously a poor man who worked hard enough to accumulate labour units (ie money), and consequently became rich. I dont think its moral to take away his hard earned money at any cost, even if it is to help another struggling man.


Yes, to me it seems that people forget about these wealthy folks. They just think of the super wealthy, the ones, as I said earlier, mentioned in conspiracy theories.


Most importantly however, I think that there is already intrinsic fairness in the concept of the percentage. Unfairness would be where each man had to pay 10,000 a year to the government regardless of his income. Then you could say that the poor man has to buy food, clothes and a home and still struggle to pay his tax share whereas the rich man can sneeze out the money in a second.


That's the idea: An equal percentage tax or none at all!





posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
How about this:

The reason I have a problem with a progressive tax is less that it is inherently unfair (which it is, by definition), but that it encourages the system we have NOW.

Once you have a single "bracket," you get people trying to shave their reported income to get in or out of a specific bracket. Under redneck's suggestion, you'd better not make "over $100,000," because you'd be kicked up into another bracket, and would pay a higher percentage than if you'd staid under 99,999.00

And once you have people shaving their incomes to fit a bracket, there's an interest in loopholes.

And strangecraft's first axiom of legislation is that "one loophole is impossible." Next, you'll need a computer for the average joe to do his own taxes.....Wait! that's what we have now.

So, the reason that I'm for a flat tax, aside from the fact that it's "only fair," is that it's the only way to keep rich people from cheating their way out of it.

If we had a flat tax, there'd be no "short-term capital gains," no "long-term capital gains," no "deferred tax annuities," et al ad nauseum.

I would allow deductions for actual business expenses paid for in dollars, actual donations to 501(c)3's in dollars, and that's it.

I'd bet you that the waitress who is taxed on her tips would be less likely to cheat if it were a smaller tax, and the billionaires would GET taxed on their dividends from bonds, which they currently don't.

What I'm saying is a SINGLE, FLAT TAX would bring billions more into the treasury, with no weasel room. And that means less tax, and less effort calculating taxes, for all americans.

The definition of fair, in so many ways.

.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by they see ALL
 





Would you punish a child if you put an opened cookie jar on the floor where he or she can easily get at it? No, that would be the parent's fault for being idiotic!


Not the best analogy IMO. We aren't talking about children and cookies. We are talking about grown-ups who claim to have "good" morals.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

I like some of your ideas.

There's a better way to figure taxes than the stair-stepped tax bracketing we use now. We do need an equation with a smoother curve to it, although I still believe the progressive tax system, if not overwhelmed by excessive spending, is the fairest overall.

As far as capital gains and other sources of income, I am at a loss to explain (in any logical sense other than those in power want it this way
) why income is treated differently if from different sources. What is the difference between working 40 hours a week to make $50K and investing hard-earned money you have accumulated to make $50K? I see none. It is simply a question of whether you are investing capital or time. Therefore, I believe all income should be taxed without regard to it's source (save for deductions on investments for the original amount invested of course).

I can also get behind your concept of no unnecessary deductions. I would keep business expenses, individual and dependent exemptions, and I could even see allowing the first, say, $50K of investment income to be tax-free provided the person claiming it did not have earned income (to keep unemployment down for those truly in need of a job; those with high investment income have no real need to work, and this would be an incentive to get more poorer people into the workforce and give relief to the elderly and retired at the same time). But as far as special deductions such as the one to make it profitable to blend gasoline with ethanol? No, that is a bastardization of the purpose of collecting taxes.

Good post!


TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I feel that those who benefit most from an economic system that promotes the worst traits of humanity should pay the most in taxes.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Not the best analogy IMO. We aren't talking about children and cookies. We are talking about grown-ups who claim to have "good" morals.


I thought it was a good analogy (although it puts the blame on the system, the parent, rather than the individual, the child or the person getting tax deductions).

On another note, thanks all for the flags and stars! Flag this thread if you enjoy the topic, conversation, and etc.!





posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Redneck, we probably never will agree completely. But I think most of the people posting on this thread broadly agree about many of the worst features of today's US system.

There is one thing, tho. I'll mark it one last time, and then let things be.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

We do need an equation with a smoother curve to it, although I still believe the progressive tax system, if not overwhelmed by excessive spending, is the fairest overall.


emphasis added by strangecraft


I disagree. Fairest is even simpler. Fair is where you have EQUALITY.

Equality is where you......treat everyone the same.

Not "special circumstances." Special circumstances creates a slippery slope where you have different entrance exams for different students, based on their race, gender, politics, ethnicity, etc.

No. Fair, as in EQUALITY, requires us to treat people as EQUAL.

No sliding scales. no rules of thumb. so special circumstances. Either you treat everyone the same. Or you don't.

See, we have slid so far down the slope of political correctness, so far along the primrose path of liberalism, to where practically all people of every persuasion are convinced that "treating people differently.... is fair."

Do you really think it's possible to give different justice for whites and blacks, and claim you're being fair? What about different education systems, different drinking fountains, or different beaches? The US supreme court overturned that system 50 years ago. And why? because seperate but equal was judged inherently .... unfair. If separate education is unfair, if separate justice is not really justice, how can separate taxes for different parts of the population be called.....fair?

This is a liberal concept called "distributive justice." The idea is that you don't get justice on an individual basis, but you'll get it because of the group you belong to. Another name is "identity politics." But it's not what justice meant to the founding fathers. Or to the supreme court 50 years ago. Back then, equality just meant one thing. Back then, justice meant PROCEDURAL justice. you TREAT people fairly.

Equality means equal.

Fairness is simple. you treat all the state's subjects . . . THE SAME.

Anything else just isn't fair.

.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I vote for a flat tax rate for everyone. Say, 15 pct. No deductions of any kind. Boy, what would the government do with all that new money. I bet they would spend it before you know it and then say that they didn't get enough.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 




Welfare is a needed socialistic safety net, but that safety net can easily become a hammock if it is not operated under the principles of capitalism


This has happened in the UK and it is a downward spiral, having a baby is a career option for a 16 year old girl.

There was another thread here which is similar

Is The Work Ethic Dead?

But this



I would like to see the USA adopt a tax rate ranging form 0% on those making under $20K ($30K for families) to maybe 20% on those making over $300K ($500K for families)


encourages family breakdown, families are financially better off apart or at lease no worse off.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

Redneck, we probably never will agree completely.

On this issue, I'll agree with you on that point. And agree to disagree.


On the next issue, who knows? I have to admit, you have some thought-provoking posts.


------------------------------

reply to post by lightchild

But this ... encourages family breakdown, families are financially better off apart or at lease no worse off.

I just pulled those numbers off the top of my head, to illustrate the point. I haven't researched the tax revenues enough to make any numerical suggestions.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Any tax system, the rich, the government impose, is to keep, those who have to work day to day under the thumb.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join