200 replies to this topic 2 votes

[Astra.Xtreme]

Glassed Silver, on 03 July 2012 - 15:47, said:

Neither

It's hilarious that you genuinely think that people would favor being in the lower class, just because they get less than what they deserve from the company directly plus tax benefits or other forms of governmental support to make it "more" for "nothing".

Glassed Silver:mac

So you choose "lack of understanding"?
What incentive does it give somebody that's poor or unemployed, if they will have a never-ending gravy train if they keeping doing what they are doing (nothing)? Why should somebody go find a job if they can get a similar amount in unemployment pay forever? Like I said, if the freebies are there, the poor class will just keep getting larger and larger. Not that hard of a concept...

[sammy2]

RichardK, on 03 July 2012 - 15:23, said:

same rate as everyone else. Everyone should pay the same percentage. Just because you have more money, doesn't mean you should have to pay a bigger share of your money than everyone else. But, they should have to pay it, there should not be tax shelters or other loop holes that allows them to pay less.

This is a rather poor way to look at it..

So I make 40,000 and pay 20% = 10,000 ..you make 1m and pay 100gs ? .. I'm left with 30 to survive while you are left with 900gs without giving back anything to the society that's helping you get rich. Progressive tax system is the only way to go to maintain fair transfer of wealth and keep society stable... You can pay a higher percentage of pay security to keep your property and money safe because nobody is going to sit happily losing all their money while it's easier for the rich to keep their money.

[HSoft]

sammy2, on 03 July 2012 - 15:56, said:

This is a rather poor way to look at it..

So I make 40,000 and pay 20% = 10,000 ..you make 1m and pay 100gs ? .. I'm left with 30 to survive while you are left with 900gs without giving back anything to the society that's helping you get rich.

eh what? So many things wrong with this post.
In your example they've just paid 100gs. Isn't that giving back to society?
By the way, how come in your example you pay 20% (and your figure is wrong, 20% of 40K is 8K, not 10!) and yet you only cite a 10% example rate for the 1m? Your example is just full of errors.

[Astra.Xtreme]

sammy2, on 03 July 2012 - 15:56, said:

This is a rather poor way to look at it..

So I make 40,000 and pay 20% = 10,000 ..you make 1m and pay 100gs ? .. I'm left with 30 to survive while you are left with 900gs without giving back anything to the society that's helping you get rich. Progressive tax system is the only way to go to maintain fair transfer of wealth and keep society stable... You can pay a higher percentage of pay security to keep your property and money safe because nobody is going to sit happily losing all their money while it's easier for the rich to keep their money.

Err... what? I can't see any bit of sense in that. Fix numbers, please.
You sound like the person making $1M doesn't deserve that money. Please do explain why?

[Buttus]

RichardK, on 03 July 2012 - 15:23, said:

same rate as everyone else. Everyone should pay the same percentage. Just because you have more money, doesn't mean you should have to pay a bigger share of your money than everyone else. But, they should have to pay it, there should not be tax shelters or other loop holes that allows them to pay less.

right, flat tax, no loopholes/exemptions...

bring the tax code back down to 2-3 pages instead of 2000-3000 pages!

[Open Minded]

A flat tax is the most fair way of taxing people. Take that and close some loop-holes would make everything much more fair than it is now. There's NO WAY that someone rich should pay less in taxes than someone who's middle class or lower.

[ArialBlue]

80 to 90%

[BoredBozirini]

Buttus, on 03 July 2012 - 16:13, said:

right, flat tax, no loopholes/exemptions...

bring the tax code back down to 2-3 pages instead of 2000-3000 pages!

The only way a flat tax would work without screwing the majority of workers is by only taxing those who are in the upper class.

Like the example done before, if I live on $30K a year and I get taxed at flat 25% rate, and so does the person who earns $1M, I'll have to survive on $22.5K, while the millionaire has $750K to blow.

A flat tax only works if you tax those who earn considerably more than the poverty line, and let everyone else be untaxed.

[+exotoxic]

It is the poor semi skilled workers that make the rich all the money so why should the rich not be taxed more??

[ArialBlue]

sexypepperoni, on 03 July 2012 - 16:22, said:

The only way a flat tax would work without screwing the majority of workers is by only taxing those who are in the upper class.

Like the example done before, if I live on $30K a year and I get taxed at flat 25% rate, and so does the person who earns $1M, I'll have to survive on $22.5K, while the millionaire has $750K to blow.

A flat tax only works if you tax those who earn considerably more than the poverty line, and let everyone else be untaxed.

Tax should range from receiving money from government for being damn poor to being taxed sky high.
That way those who are poor can receive social services such as food stamps and health care for free whereas those who are rich would be forced to pay for the poor and the services they provide, and everything in-between.

[HSoft]

exotoxic, on 03 July 2012 - 16:23, said:

It is the poor semi skilled workers that make the rich all the money so why should the rich not be taxed more??

Who's employing all these semi skilled workers? Other poor people?

[vanx]

sexypepperoni, on 03 July 2012 - 16:22, said:

Like the example done before, if I live on $30K a year and I get taxed at flat 25% rate, and so does the person who earns $1M, I'll have to survive on $22.5K, while the millionaire has $750K to blow.

Who are you (or government, for that matter) to decide how much money a person should live on? If you are unhappy with the salary you earn, do something about it.

[Stoffel]

I see the American dream is still alive.

Don't touch the rich, because someday I might be rich and then I don't want anybody touching my money.

How about sharing? The world would be a better place

[z0phi3l]

I'm still in favor of a flat 17% on EVERYONE, broken down however you want between the State and the Fed

[HSoft]

Stoffel, on 03 July 2012 - 16:32, said:

I see the American dream is still alive.

Don't touch the rich, because someday I might be rich and then I don't want anybody touching my money.

How about sharing? The world would be a better place

Actually it wouldn't be. If everybody earned the same then there is no incentive to go to university and get a good education, no incentive to push yourself to work harder so you get that promotion. Infact, there would be no incentive to work at all if the government is just going to give you the money and the whole system would break down.