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 should the rich pay more taxes?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Oracle

Originally posted by neoholographic


I'll answer with another question, that is: Why do people want more money then they need? When is enough exactly?


How much does one need..... please explain that?




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
“I'll answer with another question, that is: Why do people want more money then they need? When is enough exactly?”
The_Oracle
I agree! The super rich are incredibly unsophisticated. Owning a en.wikipedia.org... satisfies their ego more then contributing to society. I personally would get a bigger thrill ( ego, nothing noble about it) from solving world hunger then be known for owning a real cool looking egg!

However, that is not the issue. Our opponents are not concerned about spirituality or even sophistication. They want “fairness”. I will even use their definition of “fairness” and show that even then their argument is silly. As I said (only a few posts ago, please read them to see my point), should gambling be rewarded more then work and creativity?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
Should gambling be rewarded more then work and creativity?


I'm missing your point...

To invest in a company is a gambling, to start a small business is a gamble, to learn new skills and education is a gamble to do better.

The ONLY thing that is not a gamble is to do the same thing over and over no matter how little it may pay.

Your idea of gamble is really apples and oranges as to what are you suggesting it is in relationship to heading off to Las Vegas.

By your logic then ditch diggers should all be millionaires since they surely work harder than any of us. Also...creativity...how do you think people become rich in the first place lol... The person who works at Wal-Mart for 35 years isn't showing much in creativity...




edit on 19-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein

I agree! The super rich are incredibly unsophisticated. Owning a en.wikipedia.org... satisfies their ego more then contributing to society. I personally would get a bigger thrill ( ego, nothing noble about it) from solving world hunger then be known for owning a real cool looking egg!


Easy to say...

Why didn't you become rich to help your fellow man?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I've found your argument both cogent and compelling. But I have one reservation still...

Simply enforcing a flat tax would surely prove problematic without a total rewrite of tax code and a slew of laws to prevent money from bypassing taxes through offshore entities.I realize that these same problems exist today - but it seems to me that they'd be exacerbated in a system where society only got one swing at the ball. Currently even if a person becomes wealthy enough to funnel their funds around the laws... well if they buy an private jet - they're still paying taxes on the purchase, fuel, permitting, licensing, etc...

In honesty do you think that the wealthy would trade away the openness of our current banking and business laws - regarding all scopes of income - in exchange for far less opportunity to game the system but with a solid flat tax?

~Heff



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
“To invest in a company is a gambling, to start a small business is a gamble, to learn new skills and education is a gamble to do better.”
Xtrozero
Agreed! All I am saying is that if you gamble on a stock (lets say) you should pay the same % on the profit as you would if you had actually worked for that money. Note, that I am not saying that starting a small business is not work. What I am saying is that one should pay the same % for ANY money one makes!

“The ONLY thing that is not a gamble is to do the same thing over and over no matter how little it may pay.”
Xtrozero
Agreed! Whats your point?

“Your idea of gamble is really apples and oranges as to what are you suggesting it is in relationship to heading off to Las Vegas.”
Xtrozero
The analogy still holds. Winning money by gambling is still ganbling if the money is won by betting on a stock or gambling at Vegas.

“By your logic then ditch diggers should all be millionaires since they surely work harder than any of us.”
Xtrozero
Now, you’re just being silly.

“Also...creativity...how do you think people become rich in the first place lol”
Xtrozero
True, a minority of people become super rich by inventing something etc. Which is beside the point because all I am asking for is that everyone pays the same %. If that $ comes from capital gains or creativity or work should make no difference!
However, the majority becomes super rich by investing in the creativity of others.

“The person who works at Wal-Mart for 35 years isn't showing much in creativity...”
Xtrozero
Agreed! What’s your point? All I am saying is that that Wal-Mart worker should pay the same % in taxes as one that makes his money via gambling ( capital gains etc).










edit on 19-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Lets not call them rich anymore, lets call them what they really are thieves. So your question makes perfect sense in that regard, why ask a thief to pay taxes on what he has stolen? And don't give me that crap that they're smarter or they work harder....that is complete bollocks. You are living in a Kleptocracy, they are stealing everything that isn't nailed down and then everything that is nailed down. They don't work harder, they're not smarter they just STEAL and get rewarded for it by a rotten, corrupt, evil and sadistic system. But you know what the three gates of hell are Lust, anger and GREED. If you will now excuse me, I will take a step back from the middle door because I do not want to get too close.
edit on 19-8-2012 by HEYJOSE because: Passive-Aggressive answer is no answer.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
“Throughout almost the entire history of the United States income tax, the tax rate on capital gains has been lower than that on ordinary income. Today, the top rate is 15 percent for capital gains and 35 percent for ordinary income.”
FROM
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
“Why don't you just pay attention? I used to hate it well a classmate would fall asleep in class and then ask to see my notes.”
HEYJOSE

I will assume that you are responding to someone else. Because if you are responding to me, you are making no sense and only offering en.wikipedia.org... without any logic or evidence.

edit on 19-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
www.merriam-webster.com... !! HEYJOSE
Calm down! I’m on your side! I admire your passion but get a grip!
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

I've found your argument both cogent and compelling. But I have one reservation still...

Simply enforcing a flat tax would surely prove problematic without a total rewrite of tax code and a slew of laws to prevent money from bypassing taxes through offshore entities.I realize that these same problems exist today - but it seems to me that they'd be exacerbated in a system where society only got one swing at the ball. Currently even if a person becomes wealthy enough to funnel their funds around the laws... well if they buy an private jet - they're still paying taxes on the purchase, fuel, permitting, licensing, etc...

In honesty do you think that the wealthy would trade away the openness of our current banking and business laws - regarding all scopes of income - in exchange for far less opportunity to game the system but with a solid flat tax?

~Heff




No I don't think they would want to lose the system that they can game into not paying, but lets look at the game.

I have already stated that the legal way that many rich people avoid fed income tax is they give a large chunk of their gross 40% plus to charity and so end up not paying taxes. Others invest in Government bonds where the interest earned is not taxed ,and still others pay income tax overseas and that is not doubled taxed. There is nothing wrong with any of this with today's tax system even though it all ends up with little or no fed income tax paid, but money is still paid.

Even with what I like about a flat/fair tax I still see much wrong with it too, so maybe the answer is a mix of a small flat tax and a fed excise tax together, but I'm not smart enough to really figure it out.

Now lets talk about the big baddie that everyone seems to use as what is out of control and what needs to be fixed..... offshore bank accounts.....

I think this is becoming an endangered species as it becomes harder and harder to hide money. First you need your money to be made without any paper/electronic trail...i.e. cash and unless you're a dope dealer that is becoming extremely hard thing to do. I think hiding money illegally is a soon to be thing of the past. In 2010 33,000 came forward in an amnesty program to pay full taxes on money they hid away in the past as the Government is getting more and more capable in finding what money is hidden.

From a NPR report
NPR


"The people who were doing this were economically several levels below Romney," Shaviro says. "Kind of affluent people, with their own businesses, say. Cash businesses, things like that."


I don't think we need to change our tax codes to fix this since there are many other ways in progress to fix it. One must remember this is illegal and it doesn't have a statue of limitations, and the Government will not stop in hunting...I don't think it would be a good thing today to have hidden monies that one hasn't paid taxes on.

This all brings us back to the "evil rich" and how 47% of Americans pay no fed income taxes and even the middle class only averages 5.7% and they are not evil too. It would be political suicide to suggest the poor pay 3% flat and the Middle class pay 7% flat...I can just see the headlines...no wait we already have...

"RYAN WANTS TO RAISE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND LOWER THE TAX ON THE RICH!!!"

Where he suggests (and correctly I must say) that his tax program is to tax the wealth 25% and the middle class 10% without all the deductions that would drive the wealthy down to like 12% and the middle class to 5.7%.

In the end he WOULD raise taxes on the middle class a few percents but would also just about double the taxes on the rich....but that is not how the story would read.



edit on 19-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
To find the biggest criminals look at the top of the tree.

Ps, The rich dont even pay any tax.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wittgenstein
Agreed! All I am saying is that if you gamble on a stock (lets say) you should pay the same % on the profit as you would if you had actually worked for that money. Note, that I am not saying that starting a small business is not work. What I am saying is that one should pay the same % for ANY money one makes!


I can agree with your logic on this, but let's look at why the tax is only 15%. The reason is that you are taking monies already taxed and investing it. Since you can lose money in an investment the 15% is geared towards motivating people to do it while offsetting some of the risks involved. I can also agree with this logic too.

Remember we can hit the big guy hard, but the little guy will still feel the pain from the same hit.




The analogy still holds. Winning money by gambling is still ganbling if the money is won by betting on a stock or gambling at Vegas.


Well one is investing in America's companies and this is something we want people to do...don't you agree? To motivate people to do this they lowered taxes on it. Maybe it is time to raise taxes in this area, I'm not against raising taxes here, I just understand why they lower it.



Agreed! What’s your point? All I am saying is that that Wal-Mart worker should pay the same % in taxes as one that makes his money via gambling ( capital gains etc).


So since the Wal-Mart worker most likely pays zero taxes and no more than 6% we should raise his taxes to 15%?...hehe just kidding...

On a side note this whole concept that work ethic resides only within the narrow bands of hard work is discerning. It is suggesting a person who worked hard and saved 100k is morally better than a person who won 100k in a lottery, and that screams of some kind of a Puritan work ethic ideal.




edit on 19-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by meticulous

The 2012 MAXIMUM taxable earnings for the Social Security caps is $110,100. Any person that makes $110,100 pays in the exact same amount in taxes to Social Security as someone making over $1,000,000+.
Anything made over that first $110,100 is tax free for the rich because the current tax rate does NOT scale along with the higher income because of the cap.

REAL WORLD: Most low to middle income families don’t even clear $110,100 in wages a year. They will end up paying that tax on 100% of their income whereas the people that make over $110,100 scale less and less tax % with the more money they make.



Originally posted by Xtrozero
I don't understand your point...

Are you saying there should not be a cap and the richer you are the more you pay into it? Does this mean the more you pay into it then the bigger your SS check will be when you retire. REAL WORLD is that the SS system is really for those who make under 110,000. I wish I had the choice to pay into that retirement system, but I didn't even though I never wanted to, but it is a retirement system that is totally different than typical Taxes.

With SS geared for the lower tax brackets then a man at 66 who made 50k would get an SS of 45% of his earnings, and a man who made 150k would get 20% of his earnings in SS at age 66.

Another thing... I will never use Medicare too, but I paid into it my whole life. Should we also raise this up so more people at the top should pay more into it and will never use it?

I really don't understand this idea of pushing everything off on the top 6% (over 105k in earnings).




edit on 19-8-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




Yes, you missed the point completely that Social Security is still a form of “TAX” that every legal citizen pays into. It was used as JUST ONE EXAMPLE of imbalances in the tax code that do not scale with higher incomes. The people below that $110,100 cap pay in a much higher percentage of their TOTAL wages to taxes in general.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


"To whom much is given, much is required."
New Testament
--look it up.

It feels good to help your fellow beings...seven generations!



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by meticulous

Yes, you missed the point completely that Social Security is still a form of “TAX” that every legal citizen pays into. It was used as JUST ONE EXAMPLE of imbalances in the tax code that do not scale with higher incomes. The people below that $110,100 cap pay in a much higher percentage of their TOTAL wages to taxes in general.



No I didn't miss the point but you missed the point that the people below 105k cap pay in a much higher percentage of their total wages, but ALSO get a much higher percentage of their toal wages back when they turn 66.

As my example: a guy 66 who makes 50K a year for 35 years gets back 45% of his yearly earnings...a guy who makes 150k for 35 years gets back 20% yearly of his earnings...

Why should it scale when the returns do not scale either....

I'm missing your point on that one....



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HEYJOSE
Lets not call them rich anymore, lets call them what they really are thieves. So your question makes perfect sense in that regard, why ask a thief to pay taxes on what he has stolen? And don't give me that crap that they're smarter or they work harder....that is complete bollocks. You are living in a Kleptocracy, they are stealing everything that isn't nailed down and then everything that is nailed down. They don't work harder, they're not smarter they just STEAL and get rewarded for it by a rotten, corrupt, evil and sadistic system. But you know what the three gates of hell are Lust, anger and GREED. If you will now excuse me, I will take a step back from the middle door because I do not want to get too close.
edit on 19-8-2012 by HEYJOSE because: Passive-Aggressive answer is no answer.


Let me guess, you are not in the top 6% group are you?



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


47% either come out even or get more back in regards to fed income taxes. That means they are not contributing to the federal treasury. Yet they still get to vote for federal representation. Just as there is no taxation without representation the reverse should also be true.

Poverty rate is only 15% not 47%.

Yes the vast majority pay sales tax, property tax, vehicle registration, etc. This debate is over the merits of not making the 2001 tax cuts permanent and the idea of progressive taxation in general, which in my view violates equal protection under the law.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by cfnyaami
reply to post by neoholographic
 


"To whom much is given, much is required."
New Testament
--look it up.

It feels good to help your fellow beings...seven generations!


Charity is a virtue, theft by government is not.

Last time I checked the private sector is the horse pulling the cart not a cow to be milked.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
raising taxes on anyone isn't going to do crap.
they tyrants will just spend it on more crap.
GM
chrysler
solandra

they have been raising taxes for a hundred years people, look where it got us.
broke.
16 trillion in debt.

what if we repealed social security?
i know children and old people would die in the streets, and be eaten by rats, right?


if you earn $65,000 a year,
you pay $5,000 a year into social security,
your employer pays an equal amount, $5,000 a year.
thats $10,000 a year.

what would happen to the economy if everyone got to keep that money?
several million jobs overnight.

when you retire,you get a monthly check from s.s. thats half of what you were getting, while working.

if you invested that same amount of money in a 401k, thats $10,000 a year,
when you retired you would receive $6.9 million.

but,but you can't rely on the stock market, right?

well then, let's rely on our trustworthy friend the federal government.

that same amount, $10,000 a year in treasury bonds, would get you $3.9 million.

why are we paying for this crap?
for the sick, the indigent?

$1.8 trillion a year isn't enough for the sick, and indigent?

the government was not established to steal our labor.
it was established to protect our god given rights.
and those rights don't include,
free healthcare,
guaranteed retirement,
food stamps,
welfare,
free housing,
free childcare,
free money,
a.k.a. someone else's labor.

here is an idea.

what if EVERYONE got to keep the fruits of their labor?





edit on 19-8-2012 by bjax9er because: spelling




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join