Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
THE MATRIX

Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BlindMessiah

the ones who only want to raise taxes on the rich.

Well I can assure you I don't get any talking points from Washington. Now how about you actually address the heart of my post that repudiated every word you said with your previous claims. Since you obviously missed it I'll quote it for you.

Corporations are not individuals. Corporations are business entities controlled by individuals(shareholders). Those individuals gain profit when their stock value goes up. Their profit is completely unrelated to the income taxes of any given individual. As such, personal income taxes will not affect employment. Also, not all stocks pay dividends.

There ya go. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

A flat rate tax with a large exemption band, say, the first $50,000 tax-free, would also work.

One of the problems with a graduated system is that it can be used punitively by government - for example, in the UK, during the seventies, the top tax rates were set at 83% for income above £20,000. That's something which wouldn't happen with a flat tax rate.

a flat tax, but make it a sales tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Well I can assure you I don't get any talking points from Washington. Now how about you actually address the heart of my post that repudiated every word you said with your previous claims. Since you obviously missed it I'll quote it for you.

There ya go. :tu:

sorry corporations are legally individuals and taxed as such,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

the is a much higher national need for less spending,.

make the cuts first and then we can talk higher taxes.

We cannot cut so much as to cripple our nation's future. We also need to be careful to not stunt our economic growth. We can't afford to fall back into recession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

sorry corporations are legally individuals and taxed as such,

No. Corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. They don't pay personal income taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

a flat tax, but make it a sales tax.

Interesting. Why do you think it should be a sales tax?

The top 1% of wage earners made 20% of the wealth in the U.S. in 2008... but they paid 38% of the taxes. The bottom 50%of the wage earners made 12.75% of the wealth, but paid less than 3% of the taxes. And now this bottom 50% (the majority of that 72% from the poll) which already basically pays no taxes wants "the rich" to pay their "fair share" of the taxes!? Really?? Exactly what is the "fair share?"

Is that 38% a percentage of their income, or a percentage of the total tax collected?

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legaia

We cannot cut so much as to cripple our nation's future. We also need to be careful to not stunt our economic growth. We can't afford to fall back into recession.

The insane Washington spending is crippling our nation's future, not tax cuts, that would help the future.. The average baby is born today with an average of $69k over their heads.. You understand that increased taxes on ANYONE is what cripples the economy, especially the rich.. The rich ($250,000 annually and above) own over 90% of small businesses.. Small businesses create jobs and more importantly - wealth.. And even the rich that do not own a business still are the most important consumers. Bloated taxes obviously hurt this system as the business owner has less money to pump into his own business, which hurts everything (most importantly NEW JOBS) - ultimately the overall economy.. I hate the government for what they are doing to not only my generation, but my daughter's..

Edit for addition.

Edited by Legaia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legaia

This has nothing to do with fairness. Their is a national need for increased revenue and it is a burden that cannot be bared by the middle and lower classes.

But isn't your entire argument based on fairness? This is a fundemental flaw in the understanding of economics, haven't we learned enough about socialism from the USSR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Interesting. Why do you think it should be a sales tax?

Is that 38% a percentage of their income, or a percentage of the total tax collected?

That's 38% of the total taxes collected. That's also 20% of the total wealth made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

The insane Washington spending is crippling our nation's future, not tax cuts, that would help the future.. The average baby is born today with an average of $69k over their heads.. You understand that increased taxes on ANYONE is what cripples the economy, especially the rich.. The rich ($250,000 annually and above) own over 90% of small businesses.. Small businesses create jobs and more importantly - wealth.. And even the rich that do not own a business still are the most important consumers. Bloated taxes obviously hurt this system as the business owner has less money to pump into his own business, which hurts everything (most importantly NEW JOBS) - ultimately the overall economy.. I hate the government for what they are doing to not only my generation, but my daughters..

No, Washington spending is helping us get out of a recession, as are tax cuts. I am saying that as our economy grows stronger, we need to slowly cut spending and raise taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

But isn't your entire argument based on fairness? This is a fundemental flaw in the understanding of economics, haven't we learned enough about socialism from the USSR?

No? My entire argument is based on the fact that we have very high national debt and need to cut it down. This has nothing to do with socialism. I'm not a socialist. We already have a graduated income tax rate. I'm simply saying that the upper brackets need a higher percentage.

a flat tax, but make it a sales tax.

I'm afraid that a sales tax would discourage spending across the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

I'm afraid that a sales tax would discourage spending across the board.

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legaia

No? My entire argument is based on the fact that we have very high national debt and need to cut it down. This has nothing to do with socialism. I'm not a socialist. We already have a graduated income tax rate. I'm simply saying that the upper brackets need a higher percentage.

I'm afraid that a sales tax would discourage spending across the board.

Yes but the majority of the deficit has come from government spending! Especially since '08! Its like saying, I don't have a gambling problem, I just have an income problem.. And these ideas are at the roots of socialism - take from the rich, give back to the poor, except it doesn't work that way. Look at the state of Europe right now economically, the US isn't that far off but only because Europe has been implementing these ideas for about ten years longer..

The Federal Deficit

Edited by Legaia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

That's 38% of the total taxes collected. That's also 20% of the total wealth made.

Any idea what that is as a percentage of their earnings?

What I'm interested in is what the difference is between the percentage of taxes they pay on their total income compared to an average working family, for example. Even on a flat rate tax - if I earn 10 Billion, and the average family income is, say, $100,000 and we all pay a 10% flat rate, then my billion in tax equates to the tax income from 100,000 families, and so will be disproportionate in comparison to the rest.

Personally - I think that's possibly as fair as it's going to get.

What seems to be the case, however, is that the top 1% seem to pay less tax as a percentage of their income than the average working family - I'm not entirely sure how that can be justified as fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Legaia

I'm afraid that a sales tax would discourage spending across the board.

Lol and higher taxes doesn't discourage spending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

How?

Because if we did away with the income tax we'd have to have a huge sales tax. Everything would cost so much more. I know you've giving people more income, but that's logical thinking. I'd be worried a sales tax would have a negative psychological effect on spending. In addition to that concern, a sales tax would disproportionately burden poverty level incomes which are currently exempt from income taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

Yes but the majority of the deficit has come from government spending! Especially since '08! Its like saying, I don't have a gambling problem, I just have an income problem..

Yes... and we were in a recession. When you're in a recession you need to increase government spending and cut taxes. We're no longer in that recession so we need to begin to gradually cut spending and raise taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

Lol and higher taxes doesn't discourage spending?

I feel that a higher sales tax would discourage spending more than a higher income tax would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Any idea what that is as a percentage of their earnings?

What I'm interested in is what the difference is between the percentage of taxes they pay on their total income compared to an average working family, for example. Even on a flat rate tax - if I earn 10 Billion, and the average family income is, say, $100,000 and we all pay a 10% flat rate, then my billion in tax equates to the tax income from 100,000 families, and so will be disproportionate in comparison to the rest.

Personally - I think that's possibly as fair as it's going to get.

What seems to be the case, however, is that the top 1% seem to pay less tax as a percentage of their income than the average working family - I'm not entirely sure how that can be justified as fair.

I apologize, I had intended to post the table that had all the pertinent info, but every time I tried, the table would end up on the UM page as a garble of data, but I also left out the link to the article containing the table. Here it is: Link

What the link shows is that the average tax rate for the top 1% was 23.27% While the tax rate for the lowest 50% was 2.59%

So basically, the top 1% made 20% of the total wealth, paid 38% of the total fed income taxes which was 23.27% of their income, while the bottom 50% made 12.75% of the total wealth, paid 2.7% of the total fed income taxes which was 2.59% of their income.

The FACTS are that the rich are already paying higher taxes and the poor are not paying their fair share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Because if we did away with the income tax we'd have to have a huge sales tax. Everything would cost so much more. I know you've giving people more income, but that's logical thinking. I'd be worried a sales tax would have a negative psychological effect on spending. In addition to that concern, a sales tax would disproportionately burden poverty level incomes which are currently exempt from income taxes.

I'm not sure this makes sense because you seem to be applying "psychological effects" in one direction only. I think the psychological effect on say a person making $60,000 a year, of actually getting the $60,000, instead of approximately $48,000 would be more than enough to offset the psychological effect of paying higher sales tax. If I suddenly find $12,000 more in my bank account, or $1,000 more each month, I will definitely be looking at that 60" LED TV, and the fact that I'm now paying an additional 20% tax on it will not be that big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah

I'm not sure this makes sense because you seem to be applying "psychological effects" in one direction only. I think the psychological effect on say a person making $60,000 a year, of actually getting the $60,000, instead of approximately $48,000 would be more than enough to offset the psychological effect of paying higher sales tax. If I suddenly find $12,000 more in my bank account, or $1,000 more each month, I will definitely be looking at that 60" LED TV, and the fact that I'm now paying an additional 20% tax on it will not be that big a deal.

I understand your theory, but I'm not so sure it would pan out like that. If you're increasing your annual expenses by 20%, I think many people would be pushed in the direction of simply saving their income. Plus it adds an unfair burden on poverty level incomes. The price of milk goes from let's say $3.30 to $3.96. Let's say a low income family that doesn't normally have to pay income taxes has to pay that increase. They only have a $100 food budget for the week, and it's now effectively $80. If they go through 3 gallons of milk a week, that almost $2. Two percent of their entire food budget. I'm inclined to believe that consumption would drastically decrease. The only positive side I could see to using a sales tax would be more immediate controls of consumer spending to counterbalance inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

I apologize, I had intended to post the table that had all the pertinent info, but every time I tried, the table would end up on the UM page as a garble of data, but I also left out the link to the article containing the table. Here it is: Link

What the link shows is that the average tax rate for the top 1% was 23.27% While the tax rate for the lowest 50% was 2.59%

So basically, the top 1% made 20% of the total wealth, paid 38% of the total fed income taxes which was 23.27% of their income, while the bottom 50% made 12.75% of the total wealth, paid 2.7% of the total fed income taxes which was 2.59% of their income.

The FACTS are that the rich are already paying higher taxes and the poor are not paying their fair share.

The lowest rate of federal income tax is 10% and the highest is 35%.

What happened to the rest of the tax money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solipsi Rai

The lowest rate of federal income tax is 10% and the highest is 35%.

What happened to the rest of the tax money?

I place the blame on the whole War on Terror since 9/11 happened and the need to raise federal taxes is an expected result for a government to pay for the war, military, involved industries and finally, the soldiers paid to fight in battle while risking their lives.

Whenever the War on Terror winds down, focus on redirection of federal tax revenue back to social welfare public programs such as education and health care. It is unnecessary to raise taxes, just improve fiscal spending and not overpay the military, therefore nobody's taxes: be it rich who got a fair share, middle-class and low-income peoples, deserve some sort of tax break. The rich can also pay 10% (like the 2.5 billion-a year person pays $250 million on his/her annual tax return) except they complain about it and use their power to reduce only themselves above $10 million a year to 1-2%.

I believe the wealthy still pays too low, but the poor and working classes seem to feel the pinch of 20-25% of their annual earned househould income is lost to the IRS every April. Lower their taxes first! the rich can still pay 10% and not feel like they're gonna get on food stamps, live in homeless shelters or abandon their valuables (Cars and Kids).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wickian

I'm against higher taxes for the rich, it's completely against equality. A flat percentage tax for all income groups is the most equal method of taxing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

The lowest rate of federal income tax is 10% and the highest is 35%.

What happened to the rest of the tax money?

I'm sure tax deductions play a major role across the board, but I believe what we see in the case of the bottom 50% is the fact that many of these people receive tax "credits" although they pay no taxes, so they are in fact receiving gifts from the government in the form of wealth redistribution.

I'm against higher taxes for the rich, it's completely against equality. A flat percentage tax for all income groups is the most equal method of taxing.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.