Xerax Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I think 40% is a good amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx 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. Did you not read what I said above your post? Besides, if someone is unhappy about how much money they get after tax, they should do something about it. Like get a higher-paying job or reduce their tax burden via any legal means. 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. https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1088567-what-is-a-fair-tax-rate-for-people-on-over-1m/page__view__findpost__p__594980785 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SongHyeonDeok Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 your analysis is just inspiring. I'd rather appear to concede defeat than waste my time... So seta-san, I retract both my comments, I agree with everything you've said within this topic, I now feel that executives are being treated unfairly through taxation by both the government and lower classes, and they deserve a fairer percentage of taxation. Oh and executives are lovely caring people who care and provide fair wages for their employees and care about whether they live or die, much like Apple and Foxconn. Thank you for your wonderful insight on this topic, it's so enlightening conversing with you. :) Stoffel 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Did you not read what I said above your post? Besides, if someone is unhappy about how much money they get after tax, they should do something about it. Like get a higher-paying job or reduce their tax burden via any legal means. http://www.neowin.ne...t__p__594980785 Taxing the rich at a higher rate doesn't stop them from spending their money on the things they like or affect their standard of living. They'd still have more than enough money to do whatever they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Taxing the rich at a higher rate doesn't stop them from spending their money on the things they like or affect their standard of living. They'd still have more than enough money to do whatever they please. Once again, I must ask: who are you to decide how much money is enough money? If more money is taken away from you by the way of tax or otherwise, by definition, it leaves you with less money. Just because I could maintain a comfortable standard of living in a higher tax bracket, it should not give government the right to increase my taxes. There are always ways in which that money can be used: savings, investments, etc. There is no such thing as too much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekkidtruth Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 What totally amuses me about this thread and the back and forths currently happening is, there isn't a single person here who is making a million a year that will sit here and say "Oh yeah! You should totally tax me more! It's only fair!" Which makes the entire discussion pretty much a dead end. The lines have already been drawn. You're either poor or you're not. The only person who can change that is you and no amount of taxes is going to be "fair". Charisma and LaP 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Poster Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 fair? fair is the same rate as everyone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Once again, I must ask: who are you to decide how much money is enough money? If more money is taken away from you by the way of tax or otherwise, by definition, it leaves you with less money. Just because I could maintain a comfortable standard of living in a higher tax bracket, it should not give government the right to increase my taxes. There are always ways in which that money can be used: savings, investments, etc. There is no such thing as too much money. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates would disagree fair? fair is the same rate as everyone else... I'd like to see a government that can survive on only 10-15% of everyone's income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 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. Taking 450k euros out of a million still leaves the earner with 550k to spend themselves. Taking 450 euros out of 1000 only leaves the earner 550 euros to spend. Proportionally taxing the poor at the same level as the rich is an absolutely insane idea, a rational society leaves everyone paying an equitable burden, it doesn't pretend that it's being fair by equalling the percentages. pack34 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Taking 450k euros out of a million still leaves the earner with 550k to spend themselves. Taking 450 euros out of 1000 only leaves the earner 550 euros to spend. Proportionally taxing the poor at the same level as the rich is an absolutely insane idea, a rational society leaves everyone paying an equitable burden, it doesn't pretend that it's being fair by equalling the percentages. This. Also, at no point in time do you make less money for making more money, even if you're paying higher taxes. Arguing what is the incentive for making more money is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 And if you neuter the spending power of the bottom rungs of society those wonderful corporations lose out when people have far less disposable income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Warren Buffett and Bill Gates would disagree Except, in that video, they say nothing about having too much money. Only Gates comes close by saying that it is his opinion that rich people should pay more. Everybody has opinions. I respect that. If he wants to give a larger-than-now chunk of his income to the government, he can go right ahead. It does not mean that everyone else who is rich should or must.I'd like to see a government that can survive on only 10-15% of everyone's income. And I'd like to see a government that closes all tax-evasion loopholes quickly. If there are no ways for the rich to pay single-digit tax percentage, they would need to pay a reasonable double-digit flat rate. Taking 450k euros out of a million still leaves the earner with 550k to spend themselves. Taking 450 euros out of 1000 only leaves the earner 550 euros to spend. Proportionally taxing the poor at the same level as the rich is an absolutely insane idea, a rational society leaves everyone paying an equitable burden, it doesn't pretend that it's being fair by equalling the percentages. But who are you to decide how much an earner should be left with after tax? If someone who is earning a 1000 is upset at how much he/she is left with after tax, that person should get out there and find a higher-paying job. Rich subsidising the poor is utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Poster Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Warren Buffett and Bill Gates would disagree I'd like to see a government that can survive on only 10-15% of everyone's income. they already do ? thats what it is at the moment ? these extra taxes have yet to be put in... and also you think they only tax you once? over here we get 85% taxed on fuel, taxed on food, luxeries EVERYTHING gets taxed already VAT is now 20% everything gets taxed to stupid levels... you are in Canada where bugger all is taxed to the extreme we have to pay ?1.30 per liter (around $2.00-$2.50) most of which is tax tyhe government tax enough as it is ... they already tax the rich ... got a big exspensive car? they buy more fuel... they pay more tax... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SongHyeonDeok Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 they already tax the rich ... got a big exspensive car? they buy more fuel... they pay more tax... That must be so hard for them :*( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 That must be so hard for them :*( Ya, I cry in my sleep every time a rich person has to pay extra to fuel their expensive cars. :rolleyes: SongHyeonDeok 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 But who are you to decide how much an earner should be left with after tax? If someone who is earning a 1000 is upset at how much he/she is left with after tax, that person should get out there and find a higher-paying job. Rich subsidising the poor is utter nonsense. Except anyone with half a brain cell and who hasn't been brainwashed by US corporatist dogma knows that those low paid jobs will always exist, and there will always be people that have to do them. It's simply not possible for everyone to have highly paid jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanx Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Except anyone with half a brain cell and who hasn't been brainwashed by US corporatist dogma knows that those low paid jobs will always exist, and there will always be people that have to do them. It's simply not possible for everyone to have highly paid jobs. Just because there are people who have to do those jobs, it does not mean that they should be afforded tax relief at expense of others. If you are worried about the little guy, set the flat rate tax percentage to what is reasonable for him and let the rich pay at the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Sure it does. The rich take more from society, they should put more back into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Sure it does. The rich take more from society, they should put more back into it. They take more? How so? You could also argue that they already give much more back to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Not really. They price gouge, they use up most of our natural resources, and they make it almost impossible for smaller businesses to flourish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Not really. They price gouge, they use up most of our natural resources, and they make it almost impossible for smaller businesses to flourish. You can't just say that they only take and don't give back. That's straight up ignorant. Yeah, they use natural resources, but they transform them into something useful. Ex: Oil isn't good for anything unless you refine it into fuel. Plus many smaller business owners can be considered rich by definition. Larry the Lobster 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Corporations drive consumption based economies that use resources wastefully. Products are purposely designed to break so people eventually need new ones. It's wasteful and inefficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Corporations drive consumption based economies that use resources wastefully. Products are purposely designed to break so people eventually need new ones. It's wasteful and inefficient. What's your point though? It is better to create a product which then yields some given amount of waste, or just leave the natural resource untapped? Also, I think you are too narrowly looking at only the electronics market, and are forgetting markets such as industrial where products are made to last 20+ years. Electronics become obsolete quickly, so they are designed for a short lifespan. Everything else in life doesn't progress that quickly, so things are expensive and made to last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 My point is that we shouldn't use resources wastefully, given how quickly they're dwindling. You don't have to use resources wastefully to enjoy the benefit they provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 My point is that we shouldn't use resources wastefully, given how quickly they're dwindling. You don't have to use resources wastefully to enjoy the benefit they provide. It's getting better actually. Most resources can be recycled (ie. copper, aluminum), so none of that is a problem. The only one that is potentially a problem is oil, but there's no reason to believe there isn't a massive amount of undiscovered deposits somewhere that will be discovered at some point. But regardless, more and more companies are using solar and wind power, so overall it's not as bad as you think. Electronics are becoming smaller less power consuming. Hybrids and electrics are trying to gain steam. Compared to where we were 30 years ago, we aren't doing too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts