Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

Page 5 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 12:08 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

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.

yet in denmark the state schools do almost as well as schools receiving 3 times the funding per student.
bureaucracy is slow but to say its universally bad is only naive.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

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

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 2:25 pm

pandabear wrote:

That chart is stupidity exemplified.

Democracy has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 3:36 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Democracy has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth.

Democracy has everything to do with the distribution of wealth. The more wealth that accrues to the smallest number of individuals, the less democracy.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Dec 2011, 5:26 pm

pandabear wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

Democracy has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth.

Democracy has everything to do with the distribution of wealth. The more wealth that accrues to the smallest number of individuals, the less democracy.

That's something that the plutocrats, and their leminglike minions, want you to ignore.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Dec 2011, 6:47 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

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.

Because a person earning minimum wage, trying to support a family, needs a vastly larger percentage of that minimum wage packet to feed, clothe and house the people that depend on that income.

Flat taxes are inherently regressive because the cost of most necessities of life is inflexible. It's not just a matter of low income earners opting for cheaper, less nutritious food, lesser housing and lower quality clothing--it's a matter of low income earners having to make choices between buying groceries or paying rent.

The basic principle of tax law is: It never hurts you to earn an extra dollar. My income is at a level such that every extra dollar I earn is taxed in the highest bracket--but I can afford that, because even at 60 cents on the dollar, those extra dollars are precisely that: extra. They provide me with money beyond what is needed for my needs, the support of my family, my retirement savings and my reasonable wants. Which is a damn sight more that can be said for the extra dollars that are being earned by the guy who fills my coffee cup, sells me my lunch, or takes care of entering my clinical notes into the computer system.

_________________
--James

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 7:03 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

phil777 wrote:

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

Alright, I get all that, and I see where you're coming from, but how does that justify charging stupid rates for people earning a lot of money?

These are the current income tax brackets in Hong Kong (who's economy is doing a lot better than the US or the UK's):

Quote:

Nil to HKD40,000 - 2%
HKD40,000 to HKD80,000 – 7%
HKD80,000 to HKD120,000 – 12%
HKD120,000 upwards – 17%

The basic rate is 20% in the UK and 10% in the US. In Hong Kong, it's 2% as you can see above. That's fair, right? And even if you're a millionaire, you're only paying 17%, and that's only for salaries, not capital gains or any other source of income. And get this... Hong Kong has higher tax revenues than the UK, with all its hidden stealth taxes and stupidly high income tax and VAT. Hell, HK has no VAT at all.

So high taxes do not equal more money. To keep an economy healthy, you need money flowing through it, and for that to happen, you need low taxes.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Dec 2011, 7:17 pm

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

02 Dec 2011, 7:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Dec 2011, 7:24 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

The majority of the "rich" are 1st Generation, meaning they worked their way up the ladder, and became wealthy.

Didn't Obama set the bar at $250,000 a year for a family, that's well within the gross income of a typical small business owner that isn't registered as a corporation.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 7:37 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

He makes a good point, what the governments define as "rich" is rarely what we think of as "rich". Here in the UK, the government says anyone earning over £150,000 is "rich", and that makes you a certain percentage of highest earning people in the country and whatever, but in the real world, these people have bigger mortgages and more bills, so they still feel financially squeezed.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

02 Dec 2011, 7:48 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

When democrats say rich they mean the top 1% there is "no good point" only a strawman.
the middle class are called the middle class
the rich are called the rich.
the liar are called liars.

_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Dec 2011, 7:51 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

When democrats say rich they mean the top 1% there is "no good point" only a strawman.
the middle class are called the middle class
the rich are called the rich.
the liar are called liars.

Actually I will say it flat out.

The Democrats are being completely dishonest with the American people, the words give were poll tested so that people would blindly support something, that if they knew what it really was, they would never support it.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 7:51 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

Bait and switch shameful.
the top 1% are not small business people and retires.
If you were honest you would stop repeating this lie.

When democrats say rich they mean the top 1% there is "no good point" only a strawman.
the middle class are called the middle class
the rich are called the rich.
the liar are called liars.

All I'm saying is, don't trust governments which preach about "the rich". They usually are just talking about the middle class if they're advocating stupid ineffective high taxes or whatever.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

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

02 Dec 2011, 8:44 pm

pandabear wrote:

zer0netgain wrote:

Democracy has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth.

Democracy has everything to do with the distribution of wealth. The more wealth that accrues to the smallest number of individuals, the less democracy.

That is because the government has been bought and bribed. In a bribe situation both the briber and the bribee are equally at fault. It takes two to tango, two to f**k, and two to betray the public trust.

ruveyn

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Dec 2011, 11:46 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Why should small business owners and retirees be punished for being successful? That's the real question here. When Democrats use the code word "rich" they mean small business owners and retirees.

No one is punishing the wealthy - it's simply a matter that they can be taxed without much of, or any, burden.
But cutting social programs definitely is a way to punish not only the poor, but also the middle class, who are dependent on that help.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

03 Dec 2011, 12:11 am

Why should someone be punished for failing?

Page 5 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ? Post Reply New Topic

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?