Register

Log In

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

Page 4 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2011, 7:55 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

A little hard hearted, isn't it?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No. It is very hard-heared Better a hard heart than a soft head.

ruveyn

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 8:06 am

mikecartwright wrote:

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

A better question would be, "who creates the majority of private employment?" The answer to this is "the wealthy."

So do you want to give the people who provide most of the jobs an incentive to be driven out of the country because of high taxes? No, of course not.

Hong Kong has a only three taxes, each at about 10% (including income tax). High earners also pay a very low rate of tax. Yet Hong Kong make more in tax revenue than the UK, which charge a 50% tax rate on anyone earning over £150k a year, and that's not including all the stealth taxes. The UK also has a much, much larger deficit and a much less stable economy.

Continuing with the UK, the tax revenue was higher when Thatcher decreased taxes for the wealthy. Which makes sense when you think about it - if the people who run the businesses have more money, they can afford to employ more people and pay higher wages, and therefore earn more themselves as well as help others make more, which, in turn, means the government gets more money paid to it in tax, and the economy is growing more and is generally healthier.

So, no. It's a stupid simplistic idea which holds no water when you consider the larger economic picture and what wealthy people actually do for our society. Simply hating on "the rich" is counterproductive and childish.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

02 Dec 2011, 9:06 am

MarsCoban wrote:

Seems like the rich would want healthy and contented slaves, as it seems logical to believe that they would be more productive, and less likely to rebel. With what's happening now, the rich are really only going to end up kicking themselves in the a**. I don't believe that most people feel the need to be filthy rich, but I think that most people do enjoy having disposable income, and not having to struggle just to pay for the essentials. The rich could remain filthy rich (a little less filthy, though, as they wouldn't have quite as much blood on their hands), if they would only allow the poor to be...rich enough.

By taking care of oneself, one is also taking care of the whole. But by taking care of the whole, one is also taking care of oneself.

You would think so, but the simple fact is that on a global scale it is not possible. Americans have been demonized for having over 90% of the world's wealth but only 10% of the world's population. Of course, such nay sayers ignore the fact that America doesn't spend decades in civil wars, political uprisings, etc. and has an economic model that encourages and rewards invention and innovation.

Still, if you tried to grant the "middle class" standard of living to everyone in the world, you couldn't do it. There's not enough "wealth" to raise everyone up. Indeed, the motive for "globalism" to help the poor nations has only served to increase the gap between haves and have nots in wealthy western nations because spreading the wealth around always results in it coming from the middle class and "lower upper class" members of society because you are shipping the good opportunities that made them more prosperous to other nations.

Such policies eventually result in just two basic categories. Those with the wealth (the uber wealthy) and everyone else.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

02 Dec 2011, 9:14 am

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 9:16 am

pandabear wrote:

"This is not what democracy looks like"? Democracy is about voting for your government, not having socialist policies regarding the distribution of income.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2011, 9:29 am

Asp-Z wrote:

"This is not what democracy looks like"? Democracy is about voting for your government, not having socialist policies regarding the distribution of income.

A common rhetorical trick of the Left is to conflate democracy with equality. Humans have never been equal. Some are smarter than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are more beautiful than others. Some are more virtuous than others. Equality means putting down the best and raising of the least. It is a strategy that if put into full practice would mean the extinction of our species.

ruveyn

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 9:33 am

ruveyn wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

"This is not what democracy looks like"? Democracy is about voting for your government, not having socialist policies regarding the distribution of income.

A common rhetorical trick of the Left is to conflate democracy with equality. Humans have never been equal. Some are smarter than others. Some are stronger than others. Some are more beautiful than others. Some are more virtuous than others. Equality means putting down the best and raising of the least. It is a strategy that if put into full practice would mean the extinction of our species.

ruveyn

I could not agree more with this. And it's funny, because if the people who spent all their time bitching about how rich other people are used all that wasted energy to actually try and make some money, they'd probably be wealthier themselves.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

02 Dec 2011, 9:34 am

to me true freedom cant be had without equal foundations for all.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2011, 9:36 am

Oodain wrote:

to me true freedom cant be had without equal foundations for all.

That would be equality of law and justice. Which is not the same as equalizing income or consumption.

ruveyn

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

02 Dec 2011, 10:14 am

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

to me true freedom cant be had without equal foundations for all.

That would be equality of law and justice. Which is not the same as equalizing income or consumption.

ruveyn

but it would entail equal access to education and healthcare, or ones ability would be limited by ones parents.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2011, 10:26 am

Oodain wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

to me true freedom cant be had without equal foundations for all.

That would be equality of law and justice. Which is not the same as equalizing income or consumption.

ruveyn

but it would entail equal access to education and healthcare, or ones ability would be limited by ones parents.

Education and Healthcare are not things to be passed around or divided. They are -services- which require human labor and thought. You propose to make doctors and teachers slaves of the State.

Equal access to service, means the service provider must provide it under penalty of Law. It denies the service provider the right to pick and choose whom he/she will deal with. It denies the basic right of freedom of association. Humans should be free to pick and choose who they will associate with, who they will sell to and who they will buy from.

ruveyn

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 10:28 am

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

to me true freedom cant be had without equal foundations for all.

That would be equality of law and justice. Which is not the same as equalizing income or consumption.

ruveyn

but it would entail equal access to education and healthcare, or ones ability would be limited by ones parents.

Education and Healthcare are not things to be passed around or divided. They are -services- which require human labor and thought. You propose to make doctors and teachers slaves of the State.

Equal access to service, means the service provider must provide it under penalty of Law. It denies the service provider the right to pick and choose whom he/she will deal with. It denies the basic right of freedom of association. Humans should be free to pick and choose who they will associate with, who they will sell to and who they will buy from.

ruveyn

I will add to this that state monopolies on education and health do not work. Look at the mess it's causing in the UK.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

02 Dec 2011, 10:31 am

Asp-Z wrote:

I will add to this that state monopolies on education and health do not work. Look at the mess it's causing in the UK.

Thank you for your addition. Is it any wonder why such State monopolies don't work. A first rate practitioner (either in medicine, teaching or any other field) would prefer to be a free agent. Second raters just love the position the State provides for them, which their mediocre talents do not earn them. In a free system, second raters would drop out. In the State system second raters are installed and eventually end up running the Service.

ruveyn

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 10:46 am

ruveyn wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

I will add to this that state monopolies on education and health do not work. Look at the mess it's causing in the UK.

Thank you for your addition. Is it any wonder why such State monopolies don't work. A first rate practitioner (either in medicine, teaching or any other field) would prefer to be a free agent. Second raters just love the position the State provides for them, which their mediocre talents do not earn them. In a free system, second raters would drop out. In the State system second raters are installed and eventually end up running the Service.

ruveyn

Precisely, and this second rate service will keep on running, never having to improve and never going out of business, at the tax payers' expense. That's what's happening in the UK with education right now for sure. Health is debatable when it comes to the doctors - they tend to be just as skilled as the ones in the private sector - but as for the actual service you get, private sector health is far better. You also get to choose between a wider range of operations, should you need one. I know all this from personal experience.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

02 Dec 2011, 11:58 am

It's probably not "right", but it's "just". :p

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

02 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm

phil777 wrote:

It's probably not "right", but it's "just". :p

How so? If you've earned yourself a lot of money by becoming successful, why should more of it be taken from you than from anyone else? The same percentage would still give the government more money anyway, and lower tax rates for the wealthy can bring higher tax revenues.

Page 4 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10 Next

Jump to: