RolStoppable said:
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. |
Lol, yeah I'm scared. I think taxes are a curious topic. But if you want to think I am scared, cool.
In the US my percent and raw numbers are higher than most. So either number is fine to use.
And you haven't answered any of the questions I posed. What is rich? What qualities as redistribution? I'm just curious on actual values and not generic verbiage.
That bold part, in the US, is only true for top 1%. For most well off people, we do have a tiered system. My rate is already higher than most.
Overall you clearly do not know how the US tax codes works. The magical tiered system you speak about has been in place for decades upon decades.
But you being uninformed isn't new and is a common occurrence at this point.
| 10% | $10,275 or less | $20,550 or less | $10,275 or less | $14,650 or less |
| 12% | $10,276 to $41,775 | $20,551 to $83,550 | $10,276 to $41,775 | $14,651 to $55,900 |
| 22% | $41,776 to $89,075 | $83,551 to $178,150 | $41,776 to $89,075 | $55,901 to $89,050 |
| 24% | $89,076 to $170,050 | $178,151 to $340,100 | $89,076 to $170,050 | $89,051to $170,050 |
| 32% | $170,051 to $215,950 | $340,101 to $431,900 | $170,051 to $215,950 | $170,051 to $215,950 |
| 35% | $215,951 to $539,900 | $431,901 to $647,850 | $215,951 to $323,925 | $215,951 to $539,900 |
| 37% | $539,901 or more | $647,851 or more | $323,926 or more | $539,901 or more |
