What is a fair tax rate for people on over $1m?

[ccoltmanm]

Again, because this doesn't work. Flat rate taxes only causes disparity between the classes and furthers the poor get poorer and rich get richer scenario. Lower classes suffer the most while upper classes barely feel a hit. And you know what happens when the gap becomes too large? Complete collapse of economy and government. Go read your history.

Besides, the government has to make up this deficit somehow if they did a flat rate. This money won't come from out of no where.

LOL You are saying the current tiered system does not induce class disparity or class warfare? Well, maybe it does or it doesn't, but it's being USED to further class warfare (the rich should pay more, and we bottom 50% shouldn't pay a thing).

No, you make comments like the rich won't feel a hit, and that is just baloney. How do you know? Are you guessing? Ratios stay the same. Do you have a 40,000 a month property tax or almost that mortgage? Do you think money is infinite for the rich. Nonsense.

Who is to say a flat tax would/wouldn't fix anything, the current system isn't working. You want to make a bigger class gap, you let people not pay taxes, and you let the rich pay a lot of taxes. Then one will be mad at the other, and one will be counting on the other. It's not a nice scenario.

And the history scenario you mentioned also requires the rich to be in charge. We have a representative democracy. That isn't the same. Wouldn't work the way you think. Plus, we have 400 million people, not 6 million and 10,000 of them are the aristocratic. Things are different.

[HSoft]

Ugh, not this again. Your not earning less money but making more. Evening after tax your still making more money.

Here's another video about income inequality

Of course you are earning less money. The government is taking more from you therefore you "earn" less of it. Most people judge what they earn on what they actually see, what they take home.

If you are taxed at 20% then you take home 80 cents on the dollar. If you are taxed at 40% then you only take home 60 cents. You are in effect earning less once you reach a certain threshold. Yes it's only taxed at that rate on monies earned above that threshold but once you get there you are still taking home less than you would have been if the tax was only 20%.

[Xilo]

LOL You are saying the current tiered system does not induce class disparity or class warfare? Well, maybe it does or it doesn't, but it's being USED to further class warfare (the rich should pay more, and we bottom 50% shouldn't pay a thing).

Protip. The lower and middle classes make up the majority of people.

No, you make comments like the rich won't feel a hit, and that is just baloney. How do you know? Are you guessing? Ratios stay the same. Do you have a 40,000 a month property tax or almost that mortgage? Do you think money is infinite for the rich. Nonsense.

Oh boohoo, they won't be able to buy the latest million dollar car or that 3rd home or that latest private jet. Big damn whoop. Also, no one said they had to buy a house with 40k monthly property taxes. Pretty sure if you can afford that, you can afford to pay more in taxes.

And the history scenario you mentioned also requires the rich to be in charge. We have a representative democracy. That isn't the same. Wouldn't work the way you think. Plus, we have 400 million people, not 6 million and 10,000 of them are the aristocratic. Things are different.

If the government was truly a representative government, then it would be feasible for anyone (within the legal limits) to become a politician. However, you have to be pretty wealthy to get elected due to outrageous campaign costs and such. You don't see lower or middle class politicians. They are are all rich. Guess what? They do what's in their best interests. The entire government is ran by the rich and corporations. That's hardly representative.

[DPyro]

I can understand about having millions of dollars. There's meaningful freedom that comes with that, but once you get much beyond that I have to tell you, it's the same hamburger.

Bill Gates.

[Noir Angel]

As I pointed out in another thread, before capitalism it was common for communities to band together and help each other. Those with often helped those without, and *pause for gasp* they even healed the sick for free! Now if you do it, you just get told that you're a horrible un-American socialist. There's nothing upstanding or righteous about being a greedy SOB.

[vanx]

Again, because this doesn't work. Flat rate taxes only causes disparity between the classes and furthers the poor get poorer and rich get richer scenario. Lower classes suffer the most while upper classes barely feel a hit. And you know what happens when the gap becomes too large? Complete collapse of economy and government. Go read your history.

Besides, the government has to make up this deficit somehow if they did a flat rate. This money won't come from out of no where.

How are the poor going to get poorer when using my idea? I'm not asking them to pay more taxes.

And, regarding your comment about government deficit, if it is a fiscally responsible government then it would either have no or very small deficit. People, no matter how rich or poor they are, should not have to pay for government's mistakes.

I can understand about having millions of dollars. There's meaningful freedom that comes with that, but once you get much beyond that I have to tell you, it's the same hamburger.

Bill Gates.

You keep quoting Gates. The dude is obviously rich and clearly very philanthropic. Good for him. If he is such a goody-goody and thinks rich should pay more, why doesn't he give his money to the government. Just because he finds no joy in having lots of money, there is nothing to say that the feeling applies across the board.

[ccoltmanm]

Protip. The lower and middle classes make up the majority of people.

You do realize that 52% of americans pay no federal income tax right? (or get back enough in the refund to void out what they paid).

[Sandor]

I tend to favour a flat tax rate of about 25% with some sort of tax free allowance built in at the bottom.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Everyone should pay the same rate no matter how much you make.

[ILikeTobacco]

Everyone should pay the same rate no matter how much you make with no loop holes other than exceptions for people who would be taxed below the poverty line.

Fixed that for ya. :p

[bj55555]

think about that. if people know making over 1 million, they're going to be taxed 90-100% like you voted, what motivation would anyone have to make over 1 million? sounds great until you realize CEOs and entrepreneurs who work hard to get where they are make a lot of what we have possible. sure, they make A LOT more than the average, but why should they be forced to pay more than anyone else? I say tax them the same 35% that is in place now, but require them to pay that tax regardless of investments, etc. 35% of all income is enough for anyone to be taxed

Because making $1 million is still better than making $999,999. But assuming your silly premise is true, if the potential $1 million becomes a quitter, you'd have other people being able to earn more because the quitter chose to quit. I'd rather have 10 people making only $100K than one person making $1 million and 9 people making $0. It's not like if everybody tried really, really hard they can all make $1 million. There's only a limited amount of money to go around, and it's going to be distributed--whether it's to 1 person or 10 persons. Those that try harder will make more, regardless of tax rate, and there's always incentive to try harder.

OK, flat taxers. Let's say all income above a predetermined allowance for cost of living (say, about $50K) is taxed at the same rate of 25% for EVERYBODY. AND we consider capital gains the same as regular income. How 'bout it?

[bj55555]

You keep quoting Gates. The dude is obviously rich and clearly very philanthropic. Good for him. If he is such a goody-goody and thinks rich should pay more, why doesn't he give his money to the government. Just because he finds no joy in having lots of money, there is nothing to say that the feeling applies across the board.

Because the government isn't allowed to take donations. Gates pays his taxes as required by law, and I doubt he hides his personal money offshore to avoid paying them. Maybe Microsoft does something like this, but I highly doubt Gates does.

[bj55555]

I'm not saying that poor should be punished more or punished at all. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that rich should not have to be paying higher percentage of tax on their income just because the government decided that they (rich) can absorb the cost.

They should because they get (and take) more out of the system. Think about this. The US government is essentially like a security guard for your money. It protects us from enemies traipsing in and plundering whatever we own. If I have only $5 to my name, I don't really give **** if somebody steals it. It's everything I have, but it's still only $5. But if I have $5 million, I have a lot to lose. The problem is that the government can't devote only enough resources to protect just $5,000,005. It's has to devote enough resources to protect ANY amount. So what good is charging the same flat rate for everybody? If I have $5, it's a rounding error compared to the guy with $5 million. Taxing somebody with so little money is nothing more than an token gesture to make it seem more fair to the wealthy. Let the guy with $5 keep his buck and a quarter. Maybe he'll go buy a McDouble and allow Ronald McDonald to be richer.

We can talk about making the tax system fair, but the main problem is that the economic system isn't fair to begin with. Is it fair that if one person starts with zero, it's nearly impossible for him to make $1 billion no matter how hard he works, yet if a person was gifted $1 billion by Daddy, he could easily double or triple that money? Right now it's too easy to make money by just having money. We're encouraging a society of idle rich and destitute poor with practically nobody in between.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Percentage? The same as everyone else!

[seta-san]

incentive to be in the lower class

incentive to be in the lower class

incentive to be in the lower class

:laugh:

Glassed Silver:mac

he's not saying that there is every incentive to keep your income LOWER than 1Mil. What a progressive tax rate really does is it imposes a light speed barrier to income. The closer you approach it the more you start to not gain velocity and start picking up mass.

[thealexweb]

Flat 20% for every income, no income tax on the first $10,000

[Sir Topham Hatt]

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.

The problem I have with this is the Fat Cats who run companies like British Gas (for example).

There was a report a few years ago that the company was disappointed they only made ?14 Billion profit instead of their projected ?16 Billion. If they are making billions of pounds in profit, I am paying far too much for gas.

The other issue is bankers / city traders earning bonuses and salaries over ?1 million. Why? I don't think what they do for a living deserves that much money, not when people who save peoples lives (like firefighters and doctors) earn way loads less.

So when you get some executive earning loads for simply sending and receiving a few emails a day, I don't understand their mathematics.

If you are someone like Alan Sugar who got rich all by yourself with your own businesses, that's different and they should pay the same tax as everyone else. More things need to be in Government / Public ownership rather than shareholders.

[vanx]

Because the government isn't allowed to take donations. Gates pays his taxes as required by law, and I doubt he hides his personal money offshore to avoid paying them. Maybe Microsoft does something like this, but I highly doubt Gates does.

If a government does not allow to take altruistic donations, it's their own fault. In times when they need every bit of help they can get to reduce the deficit, being fussy is not something that is a wise thing to do.

They should because they get (and take) more out of the system. Think about this. The US government is essentially like a security guard for your money. It protects us from enemies traipsing in and plundering whatever we own. If I have only $5 to my name, I don't really give **** if somebody steals it. It's everything I have, but it's still only $5. But if I have $5 million, I have a lot to lose. The problem is that the government can't devote only enough resources to protect just $5,000,005. It's has to devote enough resources to protect ANY amount. So what good is charging the same flat rate for everybody? If I have $5, it's a rounding error compared to the guy with $5 million. Taxing somebody with so little money is nothing more than an token gesture to make it seem more fair to the wealthy. Let the guy with $5 keep his buck and a quarter. Maybe he'll go buy a McDouble and allow Ronald McDonald to be richer.

We can talk about making the tax system fair, but the main problem is that the economic system isn't fair to begin with. Is it fair that if one person starts with zero, it's nearly impossible for him to make $1 billion no matter how hard he works, yet if a person was gifted $1 billion by Daddy, he could easily double or triple that money? Right now it's too easy to make money by just having money. We're encouraging a society of idle rich and destitute poor with practically nobody in between.

You're right, it is very difficult to make a billion when you start with nothing. That said, whatever you make can be taken by the next generations and grown gradually. So it is a lot easier to make the tax system fairer than the economic one.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

Everyone should pay the same tax rate, and that should be a percentage of what you have left after living costs have been taken out - this should be 5% max.

The government should have interests in the country to ensure that they make money and don't have to tax the people other than to support the needy.

[Mando]

Id rather everyone paid a standard rate of tax, but only if govts closed the loop hole on allowing companies (and registered individuals as companies) to register in tax havens and avoid paying their chosen markets tax e.g. Boots in the UK, Amazon etc etc this would recoup billions of tax annually worldwide, allowing punters to pay less tax! vodafone for example got let off with not paying ?6bn in taxes in the UK.

way I see it is, If you want to make money in a chosen country, you should have to pay that countries tax on any earnings you make.

http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets

[Aethec]

I didn't notice this before, but the way the last answer is worded implies that the post-WW2 United States were a communist nation :rofl: .

[Skin]

Should be the same rate as everyone else, and I say hey, let them have the loopholes and shelters unless you are planning on passing laws to close them for everyone. In short, just because they are rich, doesn't mean they are criminals, or deserve to be fleeced and shook-down for more social engineering and schemes that some politician dreams up to buy more votes in their districts.

If poor people want to become rich, and don't have anyone in their family or inner circle to start them off (inheritance, etc), then it is hard work, not mandatory 'handouts' from the rich that will do it. The current and future generations need to realize this quickly, as it is starting to get out of hand.

[tuckeratlarge]

I personally think that whether you earn ?100 or ?100,000,000 you should pay the same percentage. But pay you must.

I was reading an economists article, I forget where, he said if everybody in the UK paid just 10% - that means everybody, no loop holes or off-shore shenanigans and that goes for companies as well as people, the UK would have a massive boost in tax revenue. Taxes are high because those that would pay a lot don't pay what they should.

That being said, if the idiots in parliament spent the taxes properly we wouldn't be in half as much brown smelly stuff!

[Louis]

I think percentages shouldn't exist, the government should send you a detailed list of the services it's giving you and a bill to pay for the shared costs, also offering an opt-out option for certain non-essential services.

[Aethec]

I think percentages shouldn't exist, the government should send you a detailed list of the services it's giving you and a bill to pay for the shared costs, also offering an opt-out option for certain non-essential services.

Opting out means increasing the bill for others. Not an option.