By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What % of tax revenues should the rich (top 5%) pay?

Zlejedi on 16 December 2010
Galaki said:
Zlejedi said:
Galaki said:
Soleron said:

Currently the problem isn't the rate but the fact that high earners pay good accountants to transfer income around so the actual amount paid is MUCH less than it should be.


They know all the loopholes. Meanwhile, the rest of the world pay full tax.

Maybe tax should be based on wealth, rather than income. That'll probably push people to spend instead of stuffing in the banks.

And that's another reason for flat tax rate without any loopholes to exploit.

Not to mention huge reduction in amount of people needed to keep and check tax system from the goverment side.

I've always thought that the tax system is there to scam unaware/lazy people. (I am one of the lazy ones)

You'd actually have to dig into the rules and all that mumble jumble and exploit it. I hate tax returns.

I was always under impression that current system best friends are strong lobbies of lawyers and accountants making a killing from helping lazy people with that huge mess ;)



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network
Linkasf on 16 December 2010

Thank god for no taxes where I live.



RCTjunkie on 16 December 2010

I want to be careful into organizing categories for percentages.

For example, if I said 20% for less then 100K, and 30% for more then 100K, what would motivate someone to get a pay raise from 99,000 dollars to 105,000 dollars when in reality they'll lose money?

Maybe just a flat dollar per dollar 23.436% tax rate.



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

MrT-Tar on 16 December 2010

60% sounds good to me, though to be honest I would be happy if the 50% rate is made permanent 




SamuelRSmith on 16 December 2010
RCTjunkie said:

I want to be careful into organizing categories for percentages.

For example, if I said 20% for less then 100K, and 30% for more then 100K, what would motivate someone to get a pay raise from 99,000 dollars to 105,000 dollars when in reality they'll lose money?

Maybe just a flat dollar per dollar 23.436% tax rate.


They don't lose money. When the tax rate goes up from 20% to 30% at the 100k mark, that means that each additional dollar that they earn above the 100k is taxed at 30%, the first 100k is still taxed at 20%.



Around the Network
myabsolution on 16 December 2010

Guess im in the mass minority here... but back in the ww2 era, the top 1% payed 90% in taxes.... and they were still filthy rich.

Make 100 million dollars? Get taxed 90 million? 10 million is still filthy rich.

If it were up to me most people would be taxed according to their income, none of this "everyone taxed same". thats why the system is failing.

 

People are generally brainwashed that taxes = bad.

 

I would GLADLY pay 60% taxes if it meant free healthcare (dental as well), free university, better social services for those that need it.



rocketpig on 16 December 2010
HappySqurriel said:
rocketpig said:

I used to scream "flat tax! flat tax!" but it's just not a reasonable stance. With the wealthiest 1% controlling more and more of America every year, it's gone completely out of control. The gap between even the middle class and the wealthiest Americans is red shifting far more than it ever should.

When 5% of Americans own nearly 2/3rds of our wealth, something isn't right with this country. It's gone from "work hard and you'll succeed" to "put yourself further in debt every year to maintain an equivalent lifestyle to your parents".

OT: if they earn 33% of all income, they should probably be paying somewhere around 66% of all taxes. They're making all that money on the backs of the American public. Giving some of it back to maintain the infrastructure that supports them won't kill their pocketbooks.

With that said, the entire government structure should be aggressively sliced down so EVERYBODY pays less in taxes.

There are two (main) reasons why the "rich" are getting further ahead while the "poor" are falling further behind, and neither is that the "rich" pay too little taxes ...

First and foremost, the government is being run to benefit large corporations and unions; and this is coming at the expense of small business and individuals. I could go into detail on this, but (essentially) the problem is that the tax code, regulations, oversight, and government grants are mostly set up to give large corporations a massive advantage over the small business man.

Secondly, for the past several decades inflation has been under-reported and the higher your income is the more likely you were able to get a raise at the real rate of inflation; while poorer individuals tended to have difficulty getting raises that matched the reported rate of inflation. A 1% or 2% discrepancy may not seem like that much, but compounded over 20 or 30 years it makes a massive difference.

Absolutely. This isn't a one-headed monster that can easily be slain but it IS all tied together. Over the past 40 years, the government has eschewed any semblance of working for the average American in favor of reducing taxes on the wealthy and giving corporations massive loopholes through which to pay their workers less and less every year. Unions are just as bad and don't look out for their workers; they work to keep themselves in power.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 16 December 2010
Zlejedi said:
rocketpig said:
Zlejedi said:

Everyone should pay the same tax rate. People shouldn't be punished by system because they are smart enough to earn more.

Unless that system is artificially maintaining a work force that is underpaid, under-insured, and generally bankrupt compared to previous generations.

That's what socialist were saying in early 20th century.

Somehow their solution to it created poverty on unmatched scale never seen in capitalistic countries with their "unfair" systems.

Socialists created poverty? Really? Where?

Anyway, you're completely misunderstanding me. I'm not a socialist, in fact, I'm nearly polar opposite to the ideaology. But when the wealthy hold a bigger chunk of wealth every year while paying a smaller percentage of taxes and the average worker is in worse shape than his/her parents, something is wrong with the system. We've been bamboozled into believing that somehow we live under the grace of the wealthy when just 50 years ago, there was a thriving middle class AND a strong 1% of wealth holders.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Zlejedi on 16 December 2010
rocketpig said:
Zlejedi said:
rocketpig said:
Zlejedi said:

Everyone should pay the same tax rate. People shouldn't be punished by system because they are smart enough to earn more.

Unless that system is artificially maintaining a work force that is underpaid, under-insured, and generally bankrupt compared to previous generations.

That's what socialist were saying in early 20th century.

Somehow their solution to it created poverty on unmatched scale never seen in capitalistic countries with their "unfair" systems.

Socialists created poverty? Really? Where?

Anyway, you're completely misunderstanding me. I'm not a socialist, in fact, I'm nearly polar opposite to the ideaology. But when the wealthy hold a bigger chunk of wealth every year while paying a smaller percentage of taxes and the average worker is in worse shape than his/her parents, something is wrong with the system. We've been bamboozled into believing that somehow we live under the grace of the wealthy when just 50 years ago, there was a thriving middle class AND a strong 1% of wealth holders.

China, Cuba, North korea, Russia, all ex CCP republics, even Eastern Europe and east part of germany are easily 20 years behind in development.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

myabsolution on 16 December 2010

Um dude, hate to break it to ya but socialism is prevalent in every major democratic country in the world. Universal Healthcare? Welfare? yea...