Should the rich pay more taxes?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.

If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.

[Black Jack II]

Royal,

Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all. Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.

Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order.

[mantis108]

How is that fair? you still have the wealthy paying more cold cash to taxes than the average man even makes in a year.

If you want fairness, maybe dropping the income tax all together, and only taxing sales of consumer goods.

Yeah, that's what I am talking about. IMHO tax system should be democratic not discriminative in order to be "fair" but that's not what government like it to be. In Canada, personal income tax was brought in for fighting the WWI (God and Country for the Brits BS). Then the government got a taste of the "good life" such pension plan, health care, etc all the good ol' golden handshakes that afforded to the members of parliment, all thanks to having a reliable revenue. They never restore that wealth to the people. Politicians are blood sucking scums, period!

Mantis108

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Between the Bush Tax cuts, the Republican Congress back in 1996 and even slick Willy, I believe well over something like a third of American families no longer pay Federal income tax at all.

Reply]
You know what? I don't care. I can see if people are so poor they are struggling to make rent and food, but a fulll third of the country? Basically you now have the rich shouldering thier wieght so they can slide bye on other's.

Now these people are from the much more poor side of our population, and due to benevolence of the tax policy are actually being helped.

Reply]
If they are that poor, to where they can't survive other wise, I can see in those cases, but a full THIRD of the US? Are there that many under employed people out there that can't make ends meet?

Countries need taxes, it helps with the defending of our nation, and many, many, many other aspect which keep the machine in working order

Reply]
Agreed, but it's still not right when a certain class must pay more in taxes each year than the average even makes....

[Fu-Pow]

I agree with your original premise MP, the rich use more of the infrastructure, albeit indirectly, so they must shoulder a larger burden of taxes. Rich people don't live in a vacuum, as much as they'd like to pretend that they do.

In addition, a flat tax rate is disproportionate in terms of actual impact on how people live at different income levels.

For example, let's say I have 10 dollars, you have 100 dollars. We both pay a flat tax of 10 percent on that money.

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?


FP

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Just exactly *How* does a wealthy man use more of the infrastructure? Do they drive more or something? Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?

If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.

Your premise is skewed. Think about it.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?

Reply]
You think it's just for the rich man to pay so much? How would you feel if you had to part with 90 bills, and your neighbor only had to lose 9?

How about this, suppose you went to a baseball game, and you had to pay 90 to get in because you are rich, but the block next to you only pays 9? You are getting the same thing (a baseball game) Is it fair that you have to pay 90, when the guy next to you gets in for a tenth of that?

[Mr Punch]

You need to pick your heroes better. Hugo Chavez is nothing more than a 3rd world Stalinist wanna-be who has consistently demonstrated his disdain for democratic ideals and freedom of speech. He has implemented policies that will be disasterous for Venezuelans.

The big green round thing with lots of white teeth was supposed to emphasize my button pushing at that point. I know your opinion on Chavez, which is why I suddenly brought him into an unrelated argument... it was just a humourous attempt at pre-empting anybody accusing me of being a liberal or (shoot me!) a socialist...

I don't know enough about Venezuela to make any informed opinion on Chavez. And irony doesn't come across so well in writing!

Secondly, I don't know if the rich use more of everything or not, and I'm not sure the analysis would be all that hard. The problem that people have arises when they look at the specific data. You need to go to the aggregate for this - the lumps and bumps even out over the aggregate.

Separating the wood from the trees is difficult in economics. Are you suggesting an analysis of everybody who earns more than a certain income, and including and offsetting their wealth managers' efforts to get them good tax deals offshore? And how do you assess their perks (especially when many of them, as with the offshore deals are going to be confidential to some extent?). Ask them nicely?

In addition, a flat tax rate is disproportionate in terms of actual impact on how people live at different income levels.

For example, let's say I have 10 dollars, you have 100 dollars. We both pay a flat tax of 10 percent on that money.

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?

That's a good point that no-one has addressed yet.

Unkokusai, it seems MP was genuinely asking a question from the PoV of an economics problem. It seems that you were framing his question through your preconceptions of his political beliefs. You have more of an agenda.

BJ, the answer to your welfare mom's prob is as ever, (lack of) education. Which is a taxation problem among other things. Since this isn't going to change, shooting them or putting contraceptives in the water and getting them to apply to have kids would be far more relevant to their problems than taxation of the rich (or not). I'm all for the second one. This time, I might not be joking! ...

[Mr Punch]

RD, to answer 'how', you'd need to take some classes in basic economics.

Do they take bigger dumps, and thus need larger sewer pipes?

Well, never let it be said that the rich are full of ****!

[rogue]

If anything they contribute far more, by providing JOBS, and HEALTH insurance to thier workers, not to mention creating consumer goods and products that fill the demands of the average middle income population.

Your premise is skewed. Think about it.

And when someone off shores a bunch of jobs to please Wall Street and then collects a bonus for doing so, how is he contributing to society? What has he created other than value for the almost mythical "stock holder"?

[BoulderDawg]

I've been reading some of this......You know it must really be a ***** to make something like 2 million dollars a year and have to pay 50-60% taxes. I don't know how these people make it on a little less than a million a year. It really makes me feel bad that my taxes are only about 20%. I might have to loan these people some money!

[Yum Cha]

I now have 9 dollars, you have 90 dollars. Who was impacted more by the tax in terms of what they can purchase?

Reply]
How about this, suppose you went to a baseball game, and you had to pay 90 to get in because you are rich, but the block next to you only pays 9? You are getting the same thing (a baseball game) Is it fair that you have to pay 90, when the guy next to you gets in for a tenth of that?

Happens all the time. You been to a game recently? 9 bucks gets you a bleacher seat in the sun, long walks to the loo, and the beer, and lots or rowdy fans.

90 gets you down in front, maybe a plastic seat, short walk to whatever you want, and most importantly, freedom from being bothered by the 'riff raff'.

[unkokusai]

Unkokusai, it seems MP was genuinely asking a question from the PoV of an economics problem. It seems that you were framing his question through your preconceptions of his political beliefs.

The two are inseparable.

[Yum Cha]

The reality is that class war is good. It lets one group manifest power, and make the advances, reap the rewards, yet counter-balances the extremes with the the demands of the working class, who also want more for their contribution.

This is the beauty of the free world economy, the balances. Like the speculators I refered to earlier. At least in our class war, name calling and peacefull protest is the battlefield for the most part. Not that much shooting and disappearing in the night going on.

=======

Black Jack, your grasp on superlatives is strong, your grasp on reality seems lacking good Fu. Do you really think all your welfare dollars go to pot smoking, trick turning, crack mamma baby factories? Come on, you know anybody with a crippled kid that gets some state support for wheelchairs or special education? How about some old folks, you must know an oldie or two on medicare/medicade. Perhaps a wounded vet? Some kid that gets subsidised lunch at school?

Sure, cut them loose, next week they'll be sticking a 38 special in the window of your Ford Pickup at the stop light. I know, you probably keep a gun handy too. Good luck! Or maybe one will crack your back door while your at work and make off with your plasma? My point is, there are costs, financial or societal, to having poor, and not helping them rise out of the cycle of poverty. A$$, gra$$ and Gas, nobody rides for free.

Redistribution of wealth - do you really think that when the Big corporate guy gets a massive payout, you aren't financing that? Not through taxes, perhpas, depending on the level of corporate welfare paid to his failing company, but surely through prices which have to cover the costs.

Yes, yes, yes, there are the unredeemable, at both ends of the bell curve, but you can't rule the middle based upon the extremes.

The issue I hear from you is not one of fiscal concepts, and economic management, but one of "Every man for himself, survival of the fittest."

[Yum Cha]

Rogue,

The battle is a three-way tag team. Management vs Stockholders vs Workers.

Some think Management is superior, and deserves the biggest piece of pie to motivate them to increased profitability, sales, and develop. Problem is, that they often neglect the long term for the short term bonuses and cut and run.

Some think the Stockholder is the one who deserves the big piece, as they finance it all, and without them nothing happens. Their weakness is, they are out of touch with the business, and don't make anything without the workers and managers.

Some think the workers deserve the most, because they are the producers, and that management and capital are simply parasites. Obvously, their weakness is that they are just uncontrolled rabble without management and without plant or equipment to work without capital.

However, as a few wise men have realised, that if you look out for labour, than there will always be rewards for management and capital. Labour is in it for the long term.

Economic rationalism, and its spawn the MBA, have lionised profits above viability, and therein lies its weakness. Who here loves that little fake tire you get as a spare these days? Thank the next MBA you see for that present.