EU and UK politics [OT]

[RolStoppable]

Chrkeller said:

Tax the rich is always an interesting position. What is rich? From a selfish point, if I already pay more in taxes then most people make, why should I pay more? When I was fresh out of school money was super tight because I went without to ensure I saved at least 15% of my net. Now that I have investments people want to tax me more.

Not sure how any of that makes sense to me. But I suppose it is easier to spend other people's money.

I always have mixed feelings because I have more wealth than most, but I've always had smaller houses, cheaper cars, etc comparative to my peers... solution, tax me more?  

I think, at least in the US, a consumption tax makes sense. 10% federal sales on all non food purchases.

Also I think getting rid of credits and deductions makes more sense than raising taxes.

Edit

I suppose my issue with raising taxes is the uber wealthy have a team of lawyers and accountants that will just loophole and defer owed payments.  So raising taxes ends up on the back of high middle class and low high class.  Simplify the tax code and get rid of loopholes.  

And make Little Red Hen mandatory reading in secondary and at Uni.  

Edit 2

The other issue, at least in the States, is the gap between the top 5%, 1% and 0.1%.  Sure I am in the top 5% but I have a fraction of what the top 1% and the top 0.1% make more a month than I do a year. 

I'm not calling anyone out in particular, but blanket statements calling for taxing the "rich" makes me wonder what is rich.  

Addressing your second edit first: You can't say that you aren't calling out anyone in particular when only one person in this thread has talked about taxing the rich. You must be scared of me.

Addressing your first edit: I don't think you understand what "taxing the rich" really means. It's about a tiered system where the more money you earn and have, the higher your tax rate will be. At that point all worries about the middle class are off the table already, and everyone who is above middle class has the money to spare for the benefit of society as a whole anyway, because they'll have tons of money left over regardless of the tax rate.

Using Germany as an example, right now a typical middle class citizen delivers around 40% of their income as taxes to the state; this includes the taxes on cost of living (rent if applicable, food, energy) as well as income tax, health care and the country's retirement plan, plus VAT on non-essential goods for living. People above the middle class get away with under 25%.

So the correct question is how is it fair that those who earn more in raw numbers have to pay a lower share? That's why your assertion of measuring tax money in raw numbers instead of percentage of income isn't only selfish, but also silly. Nevermind that rich people still would have more money in raw numbers left than the middle class after having to pay a higher share of their income, and if the average person gets by with a lower amount than you have, then you can certainly still live a good life too.

What good is it for if the wealth of a country is more evenly distributed among its citizens? The far-right won't find enough fertile ground to gain traction with its delusions, so no riots which is the topic I talked about. Nobody gets killed, nothing gets destroyed, more people can live happy lives. And the far-right political parties won't be more than minor players in any country that properly taxes its citizens, providing the world with more predictability and stability in its economies.

There would of course still be large differences on an individual basis when it comes to how much money someone has, but that's how it should be, because not everyone is savvy with money nor is everyone going to put equal effort in education and work nor will there be equal interest in any given profession. As you know, the fewer qualified individuals there are for a job, the higher the payout can be.