Taxing the Rich 37 replies

Please wait...

Dave-Mastor

Thus, I refute thee.

50 XP

7th May 2004

0 Uploads

794 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

I was watching the news today, seeing the latest political developments and whatnot, but something spiked my interest today: As you would have guessed from the thread title 'Taxing the Rich'. Some US politicians vow to increase taxes, others to decrease taxes, for either rich or poor, some even to not touch taxes at all. I wanted to hear everybody's opinion on Taxing the rich specifically. I'm not hear to start a flame war or get this thread locked, so I kindly ask for you too keep it civil. I'd prefer not to state my opinions at the matter, Just hear what everybody else has to say. Do you agree with increasing the taxes on the rich? Or perhaps decreasing? If so, why? That is the important thing, why? Don't just say yeah, 'I think taxes on the rich should be increased!' say why! Why you think your way would help the economy, and similar reasons. This of coarse isn't limited to people from the US, if your from a different country, feel free to add what you think about the matter in your country. Just remember, keep it civil!




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,314 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,117 Posts

1,329 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Taxing the rich more will just make things worse. Who do you think puts most of the money back into the economy? They start the businesses, they hire the most people, they are (by including the rest of us) what keep the economy goin.


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Dave-Mastor

Thus, I refute thee.

50 XP

7th May 2004

0 Uploads

794 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Interesting points, a little short, but I don't mind.




Adamus

Ginseng Addict

50 XP

8th November 2007

0 Uploads

184 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago
Taxing the rich more will just make things worse. Who do you think puts most of the money back into the economy? They start the businesses, they hire the most people, they are (by including the rest of us) what keep the economy goin.
Interesting points, a little short, but I don't mind.

It's the simplicity of it that makes it so awesome, in the classical sense. Anyone who can't see that the rich populace are ALREADY paying some 70 - 80% of the nation's taxes and that more taxes are always a negative action towards the economy, is an absolute PINHEAD and Kool-Aid addict!




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,353 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,146 Posts

5 Threads

#5 11 years ago

You can as well turn the point around and say that since the majority of the population produce and purchase goods they are the driving force behind the economy and the main payers of taxes. Which perspective you take is largely irrelevant. There will always be followers and leaders as long as there are reasons to lead and reasons to follow.




RadioactiveLobster Forum Admin

Jeff is a mean boss

565,314 XP

28th July 2002

0 Uploads

53,117 Posts

1,329 Threads

#6 11 years ago
Nemmerle;4037316You can as well turn the point around and say that since the majority of the population produce and purchase goods they are the driving force behind the economy and the main payers of taxes. Which perspective you take is largely irrelevant. There will always be followers and leaders as long as there are reasons to lead and reasons to follow.

You can flip it anyway you want, but the fact that most of the money going to the gov't in the form of taxes is from the "rich"


If there is no image, Mikey broke something...



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,353 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,146 Posts

5 Threads

#7 11 years ago

When taxed the rich by various mechanisms obtain more from the poor in order to compensate for this. By contrast if you tax the poor they can't afford as much and the rich have less money since fewer people can buy their goods and services. Obviously there’s some leeway in the values that you apply before these forces start to come into effect but by and large where you take the money out of the system doesn't really matter a whole lot. The only real matter is you're going to get fucked somewhere along the line. It's when you start to compare global markets, taxing the poor to a large degree and still being able to retain a large customer base abroad that will be able to pay for high cost goods, that slewing the equation within your own country makes sense. Even then you essentially impoverish a large portion of your nation in order to line a few peoples’ pockets. And the more money that is concentrated in one place the less value that money has since there are less and less things it can buy, super inflation anyone? In the long run even that approach makes little sense. As far as internal taxes go a flat percentage of income would make the most sense, though that seems somewhat unlikely.




Dave-Mastor

Thus, I refute thee.

50 XP

7th May 2004

0 Uploads

794 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Adamus;4037293...is an absolute PINHEAD and Kool-Aid addict!

Hmm, I wonder what show you watch every night? :lol: Nemmerle, I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I believe that you're saying that even though the 'rich' are paying more, it still falls on the poor-man's shoulders?




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,353 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,146 Posts

5 Threads

#9 11 years ago

I'm saying it falls on everyone's shoulders regardless of where you take it out of the system. The strong or rich just tend to be in a position of power such that they can cushion the blow for themselves by obtaining resources from outside their own society to a greater degree than the weak or poor, and even that only for a time.

To an extent thinking of the economy as concerned with money is a flawed perspective. The economy is concerned with the things that money represents, themselves the result of expended energy. In its purest form the economy is simply an energy transfer system composed of symbols and abstract meaning. Just like a food chain, as an example of another energy management system, if you imbalance a part of the equation it tends to balance itself out eventually, though not always to your liking.




jpd1975

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th November 2007

0 Uploads

13 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

You can argue that yes, the rich pay a greater number in actual dollars into the tax system. However in today's economy the gap between each economic class is growing by leaps and bounds. Leaving the rich richer and the poor much poorer.

Aside from the fact that the Federal Income Tax system is unconstitutional, it is also unfair. The current tax code allows loopholes that are accessible for those with greater resources at their disposal. Among them would be corporations that recently proposed a setup of their main corporate offices in Dubai (i.e. Halliburton. This move alone will save them billions (yes, that is billions, tens and hundreds of billions) in corporate taxes, enabling them to pay their CEO's more money. So in the example of Halliburton, they are making billions of dollars from the US taxpayers (no bid contracts to supply the troops in Iraq, shuttle oil out of Iraq, etc.) resulting in a net LOSS of US dollars from OUR economy where it will be invested in offshore accounts and used to line the pockets of countless incumbent politicians in our corrupt and negligent government.

A recent example of the runaway corporate pillaging of the US economy is what happened with Merrill Lynch. Their inept CEO loses them 8 bn dollars in 07 and does he get fired... yes. But what he also gets is a golden parachute in the hundreds of millions. Stock options, cash, etc. Now, I can guarantee you that he has an accountant that can shield his income from being taken by the Feds.

I could go on and name many more examples of this type of activity but I won't bore you. There is an alternative solution to this situation - that would force a fair taxation system (although still unconstitutional) on every economic class in the US. That would be a flat tax, replacing the complex graduated tax system that is currently in place.

There would be two very clear benefits that would evidence themselves rather quickly. Each of which would benefit our economy greatly.

First - To manage and monitor the current tax code, there are millions of man hours spent filing, auditing, validating, processing, filing, and so on and so forth to maintain the current tax system. Free up these man hours to increase productivity in other industries, technology advancements and so forth would come within a matter of years.

Second - Eliminating the loopholes would make a multi billionaire pay a fair tax on what he consumes. His consumption of goods and services within his means will be taxed at the same rate that the middle income individuals that would be taxed in the same fashion.

In summary - throw out the old rule book, nay, burn the old rule book. Start with a fair tax system where you are taxed on what you consume (i.e. a 10 % federal sales tax on goods and/or services.) Cut out millions of man hours currently spent chasing down the dollars and validating tax returns and focus them on other more important areas of the economy - education, infrastructure, alternative energy sources, etc.

Its really all a moot point anyway because under the Constitution the Federal government is only granted the authority to raise revenue by tarriffs on international trade, not by taxing the individual. I'll meet them in the middle... just make Donald Trump pay 10% tax on his catered caviar while I pay my 10 % on my Pizza Hut...