EU and UK politics [OT]

[sundin13]

Chrkeller said:

sundin13 said:

Why not fix the broken tax code and increase taxes? These two things don't need to be mutually exclusive (and I disagree with your implication that increasing taxes on the wealthy doesn't help. It helps. It could help more, but it helps). Like I said, one isn't an argument against the other. As for the exclusion of food, that doesn't fix the problem. You'd have to carve out a lot more than food. If you actually want a tax only on luxury items, call it a luxury tax and then have no illusions that it isn't going to solve any budget crisis. 

As for what is considered rich, the reason no one has answered (imo) is because it is a silly question. It isn't a binary where if you make, say, $999,999 you aren't rich and then if you make, say, $1,000,000 you are rich. That is why progressive taxation exists in a scale. As individuals make more money, they pay more taxes.

Do we need to do both?  

And nobody, including yourself, can define rich.  Which means your argument is weak.

Define it.  

You and others want to raise taxes on the "rich." What defines rich?

When do the increased taxes kick in?  

Define rich.

Edit

And nobody, not a single person, in this thread has argued against a progressive tax system.  In fact I'm on record as supporting progressive taxes.  

So why are you fighting an argument nobody made?  

You advocated for a consumption tax (excluding food). This is a regressive tax.
Chrkeller: "I think, at least in the US, a consumption tax makes sense. 10% federal sales on all non food purchases."

You also made numerous statements criticizing the idea of increasing taxes on those with more wealth.
Chrkeller: "if I already pay more in taxes then most people make, why should I pay more?"
Chrkeller: "Now that I have investments people want to tax me more. Not sure how any of that makes sense to me."

You also stated that raising taxes on those with more wealth won't do anything, or won't help.
Chrkeller: "Raising taxes in a broken system isn't going to help."

My arguments are:

A) We should not introduce a consumption tax, as even without taxing food, this will be a regressive tax.
Note: A luxury tax is a very different thing with its own set of pro's and con's. If you wish to advocate for that, the conversation would be different. 

B) Why should those with more wealth pay more? Because they have a greater ability to pay more without a significant sacrifice in quality of life. 

C) Raising taxes on the upper class does generate revenue for the government. While some of that tax may be dodged in a variety of ways, taxes on this class do still increase revenue. As such, I don't believe "there are loopholes right now" is an argument against increasing these tax brackets, but instead a somewhat separate discussion.

D) I see no value in answering your question of "what is rich" with a number. Either explain why this question is so meaningful or get over it.