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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I do grow weary of all this talk about envying the rich.

My envy of many of the rich is the same as my "envy" of the people who break in line, cheat on their taxes, and game the welfare system. I'm not jealous of their money, power, and status: I'm mad that cheaters, liars, and thieves are being allowed to prosper.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The rich shouldn't pay more taxes. The only way to be honest about taxes is to have everyone pay an equal amount as a percentage concerning federal taxes. It is called a Fair Tax. That is the only way to stop the madness.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
they. should not necessarily. pay more. depends on what. they want. to do with their money



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
It is because people don't get rich without riding the backs of others. I think profits made on the backs of other people should be taxed higher than profits made through one's own sweat.


That's a ridiculous statement. There are lots of very wealthy people that did get there by starting a business, working long hours to build it, managing wisely, then growing it smartly, investing their profits, building their portfolio, paying attention, observing and taking advantage of opportunities to sell, re-invest, and/or expand.

This idea that everybody that is wealthy got there off somebody else's sweat is a liberal myth.


Once you have employees you start profiting offf of people's sweat. It is really that simple. I'm not saying don't have employees, I'm just saying that without those employees you don't make that profit. Let's just call it a penalty for not paying employees their true economic value which is equal to their wages and benefits + any profits made off their work by the owner.

Tax was originally meant for income and not wages. Income meaning money made outside of one's direct labor. Wages meaning money made through one's direct labor. A rollback to taxes from that period would mean that the rich pay ALL the taxes. What we really need to do is tax income wealth above certian levels very heavily and forget the wage tax alltogether.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Runningaround

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
It is because people don't get rich without riding the backs of others. I think profits made on the backs of other people should be taxed higher than profits made through one's own sweat.


That's a ridiculous statement. There are lots of very wealthy people that did get there by starting a business, working long hours to build it, managing wisely, then growing it smartly, investing their profits, building their portfolio, paying attention, observing and taking advantage of opportunities to sell, re-invest, and/or expand.

This idea that everybody that is wealthy got there off somebody else's sweat is a liberal myth.


Name one person that ever did any of that on their own.


Markus Frind

The guy who developed plentyoffish dot com by himself, he makes $10,000,000 a year now providing a free dating website.

There are many web developers and programmers who got rich without riding anyones backs, heck some of them never even needed help to get there.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by Runningaround

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
It is because people don't get rich without riding the backs of others. I think profits made on the backs of other people should be taxed higher than profits made through one's own sweat.


That's a ridiculous statement. There are lots of very wealthy people that did get there by starting a business, working long hours to build it, managing wisely, then growing it smartly, investing their profits, building their portfolio, paying attention, observing and taking advantage of opportunities to sell, re-invest, and/or expand.

This idea that everybody that is wealthy got there off somebody else's sweat is a liberal myth.


Name one person that ever did any of that on their own.


Markus Frind

The guy who developed plentyoffish dot com by himself, he makes $10,000,000 a year now providing a free dating website.

There are many web developers and programmers who got rich without riding anyones backs, heck some of them never even needed help to get there.


Yes. But he is able to make $10,000,000 because he hired employees. www.pof.com...

I don't think anyone is here to villify those who are successful. The truth is that those who become very wealthy almost all did so by paying people less than their economic worth. That is how you get profit. It's ok, but one needs to acknowledge it and pay their part back to society.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
any profits made off their work by the owner.


Isn't that what a wage is for?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
any profits made off their work by the owner.


Isn't that what a wage is for?


The point is that the wage is below the economic value of the work. There needs to be some price to pay for paying people less than their economic worth.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Well, if the rich pay more taxes, then there is more money to pay down the debt they owe. More money for them to spend. That way the buisnesses can raise the prices on everything to compensate for the higher taxes. Or, you can charge everyone else besides the rich higher taxes. Either way, the poor and middle classes pay,pay,pay,pay,pay and pay.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Why should the rich pay more taxes?

Because when the rich are too rich the peasants get riled up.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

The point is that the wage is below the economic value of the work. There needs to be some price to pay for paying people less than their economic worth.


Is the wage too low or are prices too high? The Government wants us to think we don't get paid enough as an ever growing 15 trillion dollar deficit stares us in the face and inflates the crap out of it all. As I said before, do you think a wheel barrow of money is enough pay when it takes a wheel barrow of money to buy a loaf of bread? Look up hyper inflation Germany pre WWII.

BTW what determines the economic value of work? If I owned ten 7-11s I might be wealthy, so how much should I pay my staff?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   


BTW what determines the economic value of work? If I owned ten 7-11s I might be wealthy, so how much should I pay my staff?
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


enough to be able to afford all the taxes the rich complain about paying.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

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....


If someone pays in more to Social Security the returns should also scale to keep it fair -- so we do not have a disagreement on your point.

But my point was that the tax should be based on complete and total income (including investment income) no matter what the dollar amount - and not with some artificial cap that allows people that make more to keep more by paying in a lower total percentage overall.

Try to keep this in mind while I add to your own examples:

The person who made 50K a year (more than likely) has no savings/stocks/bonds because he was taxed on 100% of his wages with no untaxed money left over to invest with or save.

Now the person that you said made 150k a year (more than likely) has some savings/stocks/bonds because he was taxed on only the first $110,100 of his wages. This would leave him with 40K in untaxed Social Security wages yearly (out of the government hands/control) to save or invest with and what type of income gets the biggest tax breaks? “INVESTMENT INCOME.” Not only does that 150k person have a tax advantage over the 50k person because of the $110,100 tax cap barrier now they can then turn around and use this untaxed money for investments to make even more money which is taxed at a lower rate than standard wages.

On the highest levels people don't earn money from work, they earn money from investments.
(That looks a lot like "RICH" welfare that the working man has to pay for.)


This tax system is a snowball that rolls uphill to the peak of the highest mountain before it melts and finally trickles down.

edit on 8/20/2012 by meticulous because: typo



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
www.politifact.com...

Are you saying that those 400 did more work and/or were more creative then half of all Americans combined? * The disparity in income ( that is vast, now that policies favoring the elite have been enacted) has nothing to do with fairness. Sure, lets go back to the “Socialist" 50s ( sarcasm) and institute that well known commie’s (en.wikipedia.org... ) ( again sarcasm) policies!
www.dailykos.com...

edit on 20-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)


* PS: That means that each individual in that 400 did 389,489 times more work then the average American!!! WOW!
edit on 20-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Ironically, my opponents want to go back to the policies that caused our current depression ( the depression of the 30s was caused by the roaring, deregulated 20s and took over a decade to crawl out of) , deregulation of the elites ( Wall Street, etc) and let the elite pay less tax then us.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

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?


That is to provide a good life for you and your family.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Well most companies offer one or more of bonuses, stock options or matching 401ks. For me the uber rich might as well be living on a different planet, but for the rest of us what do you think a honest day pay should be?

Depends on what the work is. It's intrinsic value to society...or to the firm employing them......also depends on the general cost of living in the worker's home town or city....
plus,
...how much "life energy" is expended....and the monetary cost of "working"...(transportation, equipment, continuing education, meals, parking, wardrobe required, etc., paying down student loans or tool investments...)....

A person should NOT have to work 2-3 jobs, or work 80 hours per week for a fixed salary, just to make ends meet...
as for "stock options" -- that is no good unless the worker 'wants' to buy stock -- which is feeding the very monster iteself.
As for 401k matches...yeah, right. What do they match? Your first 3%? Suppose you earn enough to put 50% in a 401k (say, you have two adult professionals working, but they live a modest lifestyle)...you tell me ONE employer who would match that dollar for dollar.....and I'll try not to have a stroke..

while the "rich" and the "Wall Street players" simply sit and push keyboard buttons or make phone calls, and their numbers just magically get bigger, with little to no effort.

The super-rich are not required to get their hands dirty, to expend their physical energy....and anymore not even to supervise anyone! Attend a couple of board meetings a month, go to a black-tie dinner or two...to schmooze with their peers....

it's a backwards system when you are denied credit, or charged usury interest rates if you don't have a lot of "collateral", or a credit history, or enormous "assets".....but if you are rich you can borrow at 0% interest.

HOW IS THAT FAIR??

It isn't. It keeps the working and middle classes forever running on the hamster wheel, while the rich just sit back and enjoy their mint juleps after a nice long round of golf in some cushy resort or on some private island and call it a "business conference."

They are gamblers, often, and I don't want to hear about "risks"...because it's evident now that those "risks" are NIL if they are bailed out when they lose. And even when they lose OTHER PEOPLE'S money...and those people, who trusted them (
) lose everything...but the ones who are "stewards" of those investments get off scot free...

and if they are actual honest business men who don't go public, then sure, they are entitled to the rewards of working hard and building from scratch...BUT...if they have employees who are doing the actual WORK, then why are those employees not due a commensurate reward for the part they played?

Take a major hotel, for example, owned by, for example, a super-rich family, but privately held. If their housekeepers and front desk agents didn't show up, or their maintenance people or laundry staff or kitchen (if they have a restaurant in the hotel).....the hotel would CEASE TO FUNCTION IMMEDIATELY.

But if the CEO dropped dead? Would ANY of those people listed above not have work to do the next day?

Anyway, I'm no economist, so your question is beyond my capacity to really answer in that sense. I think it should be calculated based on what the person's actual living expenses are, not EXTRAVAGANCES like luxury vehicles, second homes, ivy-league schools, $300 shoes and $1200 handbags....just, the average cost of living for that area including groceries for the family members, etc.

WHO NEEDS A $1200 handbag? That much money would pay my mortgage for a month and a half!

WHO NEEDS a $1500 sweater? Two mortgage payments.

WHO NEEDS a $50,000 piece of art? Pays of my student loan.

Who needs $2.5 billion dollars as a private citizen?

sigh....
Have you seen the controversial movie from a few years back, "A Day Without Mexicans"?

just sayin'.. I'm not a Mexican or other immigrant, and I'm not rich. We live check to check and are able to save about 5% monthly. It's slow going, but at least we are trying to curb expenses and build a nest egg, while cutting corners and compromising on how to spend the income we have.

There's my morning wall of text!


(Now I have to go out and do some yardwork. Already been to the DMV, the store, mopped some floors, took out the trash, took care of some insurance issues, fueled the vehicle...messed with laundry, etc.

Have a great day!)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NoSoup4U
 


That's what I was thinking. But you have to make sure people don't try to screw the system someway, so, for instance let's say 5%, If your income is x amount of dollars you pay 5% of that in taxes, no matter what you did with that money. Even if you put back into something else(someone brought up something about actors and production companies) you still pay the 5% on that money. To me that seems fair and equal. Even if Joe only made a 100 bucks this week, he would still pay the 5% in taxes and would only be 5 dollars so little/no hardship on him and he still pays taxes. And there shouldn't be credit for children or dependents, and yes I have children but in all fairness there is no need to give people incentive to reproduce anymore.

So that's my proposed plan, no cuts, hikes, loopholes, just a set percentage with no exceptions.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
Why should the rich pay more taxes?


They shouldn't pay more, but they should pay the same percentage, and right now, they don't.


Originally posted by neoholographic
The real question should be, why don't the middle class and the poor pay less in taxes?


Because the wealthy have essentially bought and paid for many key figures in our system of government, and the tax deficit caused by the wealthy working so hard at not paying their share must be picked up by someone; and so the onus falls upon the "lower" classes who cannot afford their own lobbyist and politician.


Originally posted by neoholographic

This class warfare nonsense needs to stop.


Agreed.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
agreed! The rich should stop its assaults on the middle class and poor!




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join