Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Government taxes on the rich? There is a better way...

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I'm curious, what do people consider to be a fair tax rate?

Is it 20%, 30%, 50% ?

Should you pay a higher percentage based on your earning?

What do people think?




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm
reply to post by Mayson
 


Cutting all programs not specifically authorized by the Constitution would be a good place to start.

"Entitlements", the dept of education, eliminating all foreign aid, etc etc

Those would all be good places to start cutting.


I'm sure they have their place in helping the economy.

For example, foreign aid not only helps foster good relations with other countries and provides economic benefits to America. By providing aid, we can help "friendly" leaders to stabilize their region providing closer ties with the US and fostering economic development of these regions. When a third world country is stable enough, companies are able to build factories there which, of course, allows us to purchase cheaply made goods and provides more white collar middle management jobs to the companies involved in the US.

Entitlements also likely provide a stimulus to the economy. The people that benefit from these programs aren't "saving" the money. They take the government money, spend it on products and wait for the next check. This money not only provides revenue for the most deserving companies (i.e. the ones that provide products people want), but provides jobs for all the people tangentially involved in the entitlement "industry". The government gets some of this money right back in taxes, the people helped are kept happy, and jobs are created. If you cut programs like welfare out of the loop, then you're only going to have more people out of work. Furthermore, the ones that are already out of work will be starving, homeless, on the streets, and riotous. Companies will have to fire more people because they'll be moving less product. Also, the way our economy works, it depends on keeping a certain percentage of people out of work so you need entitlements to keep these people alive and relatively happy. It would just be a mess.

You can't skimp on education either. With all the unskilled labor moving to other countries, people need to have higher education in order to find jobs. Which, in turn, helps the economy by providing better services and keeps more people out of the entitlement programs and functioning as productive (not a drain) members of society.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quailar

The first thing I looked into was progressive rates and I stumbled upon this thread of a 100 year tax research chart:
www.docudharma.com...





I looked at those charts and I see that the author was being a bit disingenuous with his charts. Either he was trying to be deceptive, or he just missed the correct conclusion. Lets look at the chart where he goes "(By the way, that green line is the "Historical Trend" for the Poor paying their "fair share" in Income Taxes in America. Funny it's been going up, since the 80's. Hmmm? I wonder what happened in the 80's?)"

What happened in the 1980's is very obvious from the graphs he presented. IN the graph where he posts "What you have thoretically paid in income taxes by year" in dollars, the minimum tax payments rose from $250 to $4,643 in 1988 and he claims that it was Reagan "sticking it to the poor" and "proof" of a regressive income tax. But let's look at what actually happened:

If you look at the graph just above that one (Bottom Bracket Tax Rates meet your Income Ceiling from each year) and look at the green line (bottom tax bracket) you see that in 1988, the bottom taxable income rose from $2100 to $39,500. No kidding the bottom rung tax bill rose that year, becaue the bottom taxable income rose well above what it was previously and the previous bottom tier had no income taxes at all. 15% of $2100 is a hell of a lot less than 15% of $39,000. Therefore, the graphs that this gentleman presented actually prove that the poor were taxed less and that less people were taxed overall and that the starting income level for tax was increased dramatically. He either cannot extrapolate sense from his own graphs or he is being intentionally deceiving.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I'm curious, what do people consider to be a fair tax rate?

Is it 20%, 30%, 50% ?

Should you pay a higher percentage based on your earning?

What do people think?


Some people think that a fair tax rate is when they pay little or nothing and the guy that makes more than them, whome they feel underserving, get taxed extremely high (100% if they could do it). This is the whole problem with the playground concept of "fair".

No, someone should not pay a higher percentage based on earning...it is the very definition of unequal protection under the law.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   



What happened in the 1980's is very obvious from the graphs he presented. IN the graph where he posts "What you have thoretically paid in income taxes by year" in dollars, the minimum tax payments rose from $250 to $4,643 in 1988 and he claims that it was Reagan "sticking it to the poor" and "proof" of a regressive income tax. But let's look at what actually happened:

If you look at the graph just above that one (Bottom Bracket Tax Rates meet your Income Ceiling from each year) and look at the green line (bottom tax bracket) you see that in 1988, the bottom taxable income rose from $2100 to $39,500. No kidding the bottom rung tax bill rose that year, becaue the bottom taxable income rose well above what it was previously and the previous bottom tier had no income taxes at all. 15% of $2100 is a hell of a lot less than 15% of $39,000. Therefore, the graphs that this gentleman presented actually prove that the poor were taxed less and that less people were taxed overall and that the starting income level for tax was increased dramatically. He either cannot extrapolate sense from his own graphs or he is being intentionally deceiving.





I agree, the author missed the mark on his last statement. He was obviously bias, however if we take the same approach in the 80's the rich also benefitted. Although the minimum income rate for the rich whent down slightly, the tax rate was almost cut in half. I agree it would appear the wealthiest have paid more in tax rates over time and the trend pattern starts at 68ish% and ends at 54ish%. Which is why I support flat rate tax.
Here is research done by two republicans on flat tax:
heartland.org...



I'm curious, what do people consider to be a fair tax rate?

Is it 20%, 30%, 50% ?

Should you pay a higher percentage based on your earning?

What do people think?

as it turns out they believed at the time equilibrium would be met at 17% accross the board. I will be reviewing more on this article and similar ones.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Quailar because: added flat rate doc



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I have to agree that a low flat tax (17% is reasonable) across the board is the most equitable way to tax, although I also support the idea of a national sales tax instead of an income tax alltogether. A flat income tax with no deductions, loopholes, exemptions wo be great and would help teh economy by the loss of the compliance costs we now have with trying to keep up with a massive, ever chaning tax code.





new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join