I love the liberatarianism on this forum... I really do...
I'll probably lose this debate, just cause I haven't taken an econ class or researched it extensively, but here's my case:
Taxing rich people is good. And is far preferable to taxing the poor. First of all, income taxes are the best ways for the government to amass funds. These funds are critical to a bunch of things the government has to do, i.e. keep a strong military and secure us from terrorists, etc. That takes a large chunk, somewhere around 50% of national tax revenue by itself. Add to that caring certain social programs like schools, helping the homeless and/or disabled, etc., we take other big chunks. The government can't function without those funds. Using income tax is better than sales taxes since sales taxes create a disincentive to buy products, and don't allow for economic distinctions. People in upper classes don't spend proportionately more money than the poor, and with sales taxes, the difference in spending will only shrink, meaning the rich will just amass money in their bank accounts.
Second, taxing the rich is better than letting them have their money. It's not like they're going to go on spending sprees every week just cause there's no income tax. They spend a certain amount on necessities and a ton on luxuries, but there's only so much they need or want to buy. Even if they do spend, that money never trickles down to the poor, since they'll probably be spending it on diamonds and yachts and crap, keeping the money in the upper tiers. Items that would actually put money in the hands of the poor would be spent anyway, because they'd be cheaper items. Also, even if the money did trickle down, it would take years upon years, by which time the inflation will have depreciated the currency, and the poor will only feel very minor effects. Tax cuts and the like could definitely be made for starting fragile small businesses, etc., but especially when taxing but guys like halliburton and actors, it's better to tax them.
Flat tax/sales taxes are bad because the poor end up paying a greater ratio of their income than the rich... which is bad since... well the poor kinda need the money more than the rich...
And why would it be unconstitutional? Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia U.S. Constitution - Amendment 16 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I think that the rich (i.e, people earning more than $100,000 or equivalent) should pay more taxes on the proviso that the poorer people get tax cuts. For example, in New Zealand, many people are given welfare because even though they do work, their wages are not high enough to sustain them. Giving them tax cuts dispenses with the need for the money to go through the government and then back to the people again, saving money (albeit a small amount) on bureaucracy. And to me it just does not seem fair that such a huge amount of the money earned by people just striving to keep living is going to the government, while the government relatively ignores the people who can most afford to keep the economy going, and who benefit most from it.
If I make $25,000 a year and Joe Uptown makes $200,000 a year then they should both pay roughly 33% income tax with a expectation of a tax refund check at teh end of the year.
I can claim my house payments on my income tax returns, oh wait no i cant because each year they raise the minimum amount by a higher amount.
Each year I pay extra money to meet the threshold so I can claim my housepayments, each year the amount I have to pay in to be able to claim it goes up. Year after year even though i struggle to pay more on my house payments I always seem to miss teh minimum mark.
Now with higher fuel costs, utility bill costs rising, and food costs rising, my income budget is more sensitive to changes so i am less able to adapt and abe able to afford the cost increases.
The only realistic way for me to get a tax break is to get married and have several kids and then file taxes separately from my wife.
The poor get Welfare breaks?
Where the f#$% is my Welfare break cause I sure havent see it.
Yes the rich person pays more money with 33% of $100,000 but its still 33%
If he gets property tax breaks and income tax breaks how is it equal and fair taxation? Does the poor man get the same tax breaks?
Probably not because most tax legislation is geared towards helping the poor or the rich. The guy in the middle is the one usually left in the cold.
Personally I think there should not be any rich people all together. There should be a very high minimum wage, enough to live fairly comfortably and support a family, and also a maximum wage that's maybe four, five times as high. Any earnings above that are taxed away completely. I think it's absolutely disgusting that managers make 200 times as much money as their employees.
jpd1975;4037460You 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...
Pretty much hit on all the points that I was going to make, as did Anlushac11 above. Funny thing is, I'm a conservative for the most part, yet I wholeheartedly disagree with "my side's" philosophy on taxation.
here in DK, "top tax" or maximum tax is some 60% for those who earn more than 120.000 dollars a year (approx) and lowers down to some 35 % for minimum, and none for people under 18 (providing they doesnt work more than 35 hours a week)
To be honest I dont mind rich people pay more in taxes, but it kinda takes out the reward in things, so conserning denmark, then I believe the top taxes should be removed.
The way I see it, the government needs money from taxes. It seems to me to be better to get that money from people who can more easily afford it than from those who can less easily afford it.
Jeff is a missing boss
28th July 2002
The government takes in more money when taxes are LOW then when they are high
Where the f#$% is my Welfare break cause I sure havent see it.
Sorry, this is in New Zealand.
I think it's absolutely disgusting that managers make 200 times as much money as their employees.
Agreed. And it's not as if their job is particularly demanding, in fact, some do a lot less than the employees they are responsible for.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.;4037856The government takes in more money when taxes are LOW then when they are high
I'm not going to debate that, because I don't know about it. Could you explain, or give some links that explain? I do, however, know that even if the taxes are low, they are still taxes. It therefore seems better to get that money that is needed from people who can afford to spare it, rather than those who cannot.