Noir Angel Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 So because a person was born with a genetic advantage over another they should be considered better than everyone else, they should take without giving back? Because that's basically what intelligence is, a genetic advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veiva Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 So because a person was born with a genetic advantage over another they should be considered better than everyone else, they should take without giving back? Because that's basically what intelligence is, a genetic advantage. Do you think that the CEO of Wal-Mart does not give back? What about the CEO and managers of Microsoft? The local donut shop in your town? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted July 3, 2012 Member Share Posted July 3, 2012 I believe everyone should pay the same percentage of their wages in taxes. 10% sounds like a good start. And do away with all exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Do you think that the CEO of Wal-Mart does not give back? What about the CEO and managers of Microsoft? The local donut shop in your town? Depends on the CEO. Most of them are greedy swinebags though, you don't get to the top of the business chain being a nice person. With creative bookkeeping some of them pay less tax than normal citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack34 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I believe everyone should pay the same percentage of their wages in taxes. 10% sounds like a good start. And do away with all exceptions. I'm doubting that just 10% would cut it. There's a lot that our taxes pay for. Plus, the percentage of total income to cost of living varies dramatically. If anything, the percentage should be based off of disposable income instead of total income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veiva Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Depends on the CEO. Most of them are greedy swinebags though, you don't get to the top of the business chain being a nice person. With creative bookkeeping some of them pay less tax than normal citizens. From what I see, you think giving back means paying the government. I do not think that the government (which is no better an organization than most of the unnamed greedy companies) is the only way to give back to your community or country or even the world. I do believe hiring a few people (local donut shop) or millions of people (large retail chains) gives back to a community) just about as much as paying the equivalent taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Depends on the CEO. Most of them are greedy swinebags though, you don't get to the top of the business chain being a nice person. With creative bookkeeping some of them pay less tax than normal citizens. it's why you likely don't manage anyone and want free money from people you demonize. Execs are responsible for far more in a day then you likely will be in your whole life time. While you get to come home and unload and forget about work, they don't. While you get to spend your time playing with your hyped up gaming computer that you brag about they are reviewing reports and obscure regulations and every petty problem that comes across their desk and making choices that impact the lives of possibly thousands. When have you ever made a choice that impacted whether another family had food or not? When have you ever made a choice that wasn't entirely self serving. You are a very selfish, immature person who only wants the rich to give to the poor because you know that you will never reach that level. You know you will never have to give back. You know you will always be the one receiving the hand out. Bryan R. 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 So because a person was born with a genetic advantage over another they should be considered better than everyone else, they should take without giving back? Because that's basically what intelligence is, a genetic advantage. Holy s**t... Ownership of one's self will never be accomplished when you think intelligence is purely genetic. It makes perfect sense now that you would think the way you do. To even come here and state so surely that intelligence is genetic is asinine. There are countless studies that have been done and still there is debate on nature vs nurture. Depends on the CEO. Most of them are greedy swinebags though, you don't get to the top of the business chain being a nice person. With creative bookkeeping some of them pay less tax than normal citizens. Do you want to know the rational way of fixing that? Stop the loophole gravy trains. In other words stop corruption in government. As I said... that is not a symptom of capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 This debate on taxes is pretty useless anyway. It's obvious the best solution right now is fix all the loopholes. Yet here we are arguing over higher taxes. It's pretty sad really that we are degraded to polarizing ourselves when there won't ever be someone who will argue over closing loopholes. The only ones against it are ones who use it but they won't openly admit it because they know it's wrong. So it should be fixed but we end up here because the government is incompetent. And yet we want to throw more responsibility on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I'm doubting that just 10% would cut it. There's a lot that our taxes pay for. Plus, the percentage of total income to cost of living varies dramatically. If anything, the percentage should be based off of disposable income instead of total income. Cost of living should not be defined by anyone other than the individual person doing the living. How much it costs for me to live is up to me, nobody else. Besides, taxing just disposable income would yield even less tax than total, so you're contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pack34 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Cost of living should not be defined by anyone other than the individual person doing the living. How much it costs for me to live is up to me, nobody else. Besides, taxing just disposable income would yield even less tax than total, so you're contradicting yourself. No, I'm not. If the cost of living were just defined by an individual then you could get out of paying taxes by just living in an expensive house or apartment. I'm talking about taking a look at how much, on average, it costs to feed a small family and rent an apartment at each tax bracket. Using this figure you can estimate the percentage of the cost of living of a person's overall paycheck. Then you can take the agreed flat percentage across all brackets and apply it to that. I feel that this is necessary because of the great disparity between the cost of living and total income between people of the lower, middle and upper class. Take, for example, a higher tax rate that would most likely be necessary to balance the national budget, assume 50%. For someone making $20,000 a year being taxed at that rate would cripple them and they would be unable to pay for an apartment and feed their family. Now, for someone making a million dollars a year, although it would suck, their standard of living wouldn't change. Simply put, a flat tax at the necessary level wouldn't be fair across the board. However, if you augment the percentage based on the average cost of living per bracket, each group would be able to contribute what they can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 No, I'm not. If the cost of living were just defined by an individual then you could get out of paying taxes by just living in an expensive house or apartment. I'm talking about taking a look at how much, on average, it costs to feed a small family and rent an apartment at each tax bracket. Using this figure you can estimate the percentage of the cost of living of a person's overall paycheck. Then you can take the agreed flat percentage across all brackets and apply it to that. I feel that this is necessary because of the great disparity between the cost of living and total income between people of the lower, middle and upper class. Take, for example, a higher tax rate that would most likely be necessary to balance the national budget, assume 50%. For someone making $20,000 a year being taxed at that rate would cripple them and they would be unable to pay for an apartment and feed their family. Now, for someone making a million dollars a year, although it would suck, their standard of living wouldn't change. Simply put, a flat tax at the necessary level wouldn't be fair across the board. However, if you augment the percentage based on the average cost of living per bracket, each group would be able to contribute what they can afford. Once again, who are you to decide how to define the standard of living for someone who is making a million dollars? My standard of living is my standard of living. At the end of the day, it's my money. If I chose to spend figure above your hypothetical level of good standard of living on whatever purpose, I should be able to. The notion of paying a higher % of tax if someone ears a lot of money is absurd. An appropriate flat rate figure is more suitable, so not to disadvantage the poor but also be fair to those well-off. As well-off people earn more money, the amount paid as a percentage would go up as well. If I earn 100k, with say 20% tax, I pay 20k. If I earn 200k, with 20%, I would pay 40k. So I WOULD be paying more tax, which negates the need to increase the base %. If a government feels that it has the right to take away more of my money because my employer has decided to reward my work, I will take every possible step to ensure that they get as little tax as legally possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xilo Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Equal percentage absolutely just doesn't work. Period. Say everyone was taxed 20%. Someone makes $30k. That's $6k taken out which is quite a lot of money for that income. Now take someone that makes $1m. That would be $200k taken out. Sure, that's a lot of money, but $200k doesn't really affect them much when they are making $1m compared to the $6k taken out from the person making $30k. All this would lead to is an even further disparity between the upper classes and everyone else. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Many economies in the past have been destroyed and revolutions have been fought due to this very reason. The French Revolution comes to mind (they had a regressive tax). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SongHyeonDeok Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 it's why you likely don't manage anyone and want free money from people you demonize. How would he gain, it would only be the government taking the increase in money? Execs are responsible for far more in a day then you likely will be in your whole life time. While you get to come home and unload and forget about work, they don't. While you get to spend your time playing with your hyped up gaming computer that you brag about they are reviewing reports and obscure regulations and every petty problem that comes across their desk I'm pretty sure they employ people to shovel the **** for them... To suggest a executive does the 'grunt' work is totally hilarious. and making choices that impact the lives of possibly thousands. Yeah, deciding which 10,000 to lay off so the guys at the top don't have to take a small hit to the pocket. When have you ever made a choice that impacted whether another family had food or not? Executives don't give a **** about that either... Their choices are based upon profit margins and making the board happy, not the people underneath them. When have you ever made a choice that wasn't entirely self serving. You are a very selfish, immature person who only wants the rich to give to the poor because you know that you will never reach that level. You know you will never have to give back. You know you will always be the one receiving the hand out. Get ****ed, you're no better than him, me or anybody else. This guy posted an opinion on taxes for the rich and you attack his personality... ********. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 How would he gain, it would only be the government taking the increase in money? I'm pretty sure they employ people to shovel the **** for them... To suggest a executive does the 'grunt' work is totally hilarious. Yeah, deciding which 10,000 to lay off so the guys at the top don't have to take a small hit to the pocket. Executives don't give a **** about that either... Their choices are based upon profit margins and making the board happy, not the people underneath them. Get ****ed, you're no better than him, me or anybody else. This guy posted an opinion on taxes for the rich and you attack his personality... ********. 1. either A) he would eventually get a share of it in the form of social spending or B) he never see the money one way or another which makes me wonder why he would advocate having more money be taken away from these people 2. Execs works isn't joyful work. It's high presure, high stress and they never truly get to unwind when they get home 3. companies typically don't lay off for the sake of laying off, nor do they take joy in it. It's usually a necessary part of restructuring 4. some do care.. as i said. Their is never any joy in these decisions. 5. I never said i was any better. But then again I'm not asking for a share of someone's pay check, am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SongHyeonDeok Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 1. either A) he would eventually get a share of it in the form of social spending or B) he never see the money one way or another which makes me wonder why he would advocate having more money be taken away from these people 2. Execs works isn't joyful work. It's high presure, high stress and they never truly get to unwind when they get home 3. companies typically don't lay off for the sake of laying off, nor do they take joy in it. It's usually a necessary part of restructuring 4. some do care.. as i said. Their is never any joy in these decisions. 5. I never said i was any better. But then again I'm not asking for a share of someone's pay check, am I? Not even going to waste my time with such trash... I bolded everything that I found to be bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 They should pay the same rate as everyone else, it used to be that becoming rich and successful was something to be proud of and aim for, now its something to be punished over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Fahim S. MVC Posted July 14, 2012 MVC Share Posted July 14, 2012 Same rate as everyone else, based on what they (and everyone else) has after living costs. Everyone should have living costs tax free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 They should pay the same rate as everyone else, it used to be that becoming rich and successful was something to be proud of and aim for, now its something to be punished over? I don't think you get the point of taxing the rich. You tax the rich because they can afford it. I'm sure they'll survive without 35% of what they make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKay Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I don't think you get the point of taxing the rich. You tax the rich because they can afford it. I'm sure they'll survive without 35% of what they make. Whats the incentive to become rich then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Whats the incentive to become rich then? The incentive to become rich is you become rich? You can buy anything you ever dreamed of? Just a thought. LaP 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexx295 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 In a world where people are obsessed by equal rights, I think the income tax shouldn't be an exception. Everyone should pay the same tax rate. Countries with insane tax rates for the rich are only encouraging the tax evasion and the exploitation of loopholes. If we take Germany as an example, someone with an income of ?1,000,000 must pay an income tax of ?458,192.83 (45%). If the income originates from a commercial operation, then add another ?70,000 for the trade tax. That's totally insane if you ask me... Why should someone split his hard earned income 50/50 with the state? I think if the taxes would be lower and the same tax rate would apply for everyone, many millionaires would be willing to pay all their taxes without evading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think if the taxes would be lower and the same tax rate would apply for everyone, many millionaires would be willing to pay all their taxes without evading. I think your gullible if you think that's true. People are greedy and genuinely don't care about anyone but themselves. +hedleigh 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Not even going to waste my time with such trash... I bolded everything that I found to be bull****. your analysis is just inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexx295 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think your gullible if you think that's true. People are greedy and genuinely don't care about anyone but themselves. Exactly, they care about theirselves, so they'd surely prefer to pay a low tax (e.g. 10-20%) and sleep well at night without worrying about prison. If the tax rate is low, then saving a few thousands in taxes is not worth the stress and hassle. However, if we're talking about hundreds of thousands, you don't have to be greedy to realize that you're being ripped off, thus hide your money in the Bahamas and assume the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts