Why I dont feel sorry for the rich having to pay more taxs

Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 11:59 am

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
Directly or indirectly, you're still paying for it. Of course, someone who never had medical issues to pay for would be getting financially raped in a society like that.




How healthy will people who smoke, drink too much alcohol and eat too much be? No amount of government-care will keep them healthy, but we will all pay for their bad habits.

ruveyn



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

08 Aug 2012, 12:50 pm

Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
Ahh, I see. So, how much would someone who made $200,000 in 1950 take home, approximately?


http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci12 ... ackets.pdf

Assuming that the individual was entitled to no deductions from income of any kind, the take home, after income tax would be:

1950: $77,509.60 (effective tax rate of 61.25%)
1960: $65,360.00 (effective tax rate of 67.32%)
1970: $86,252.76 (effective tax rate of 56.87%)
1980: $92,968.00 (effective tax rate of 53.52%)


All political notions aside, it is insane to think that is acceptable to force people to give up so much of their earnings.


depends on the society and the services it provides,

if you never had to pay a medical or educational bill directly again then it really wouldnt be that far out.


$120,000/year for healthcare and education! The healthcare better include access to the fountain of youth!



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

08 Aug 2012, 2:13 pm

Well, bear in mind that taxes pay for more than health and education. Those may be two big ticket items but they are not exclusive. Your economy is very heavily driven by your military expenditure, both on direct transfers (service members' and public servants' salaries) and procurement. This stands to reason, of course, because it's the one area in which a President has more freedom to spend within the appropriations limits set by Congress.

Also, your effective tax rates are nowhere near that level now, and they have been falling consistently since their high point in 1960 (when you were still paying for World War II, you were only recently extricated from Korea, you were wandering into a misadventure in Vietnam and you were having a pissing contest with the Soviets).


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 2:53 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Well, bear in mind that taxes pay for more than health and education. Those may be two big ticket items but they are not exclusive. Your economy is very heavily driven by your military expenditure, both on direct transfers (service members' and public servants' salaries) and procurement. This stands to reason, of course, because it's the one area in which a President has more freedom to spend within the appropriations limits set by Congress.

.


Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Even so, let is keep them as low as possible consistent with having an orderly society.

ruveyn



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

08 Aug 2012, 3:05 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Well, bear in mind that taxes pay for more than health and education. Those may be two big ticket items but they are not exclusive. Your economy is very heavily driven by your military expenditure, both on direct transfers (service members' and public servants' salaries) and procurement. This stands to reason, of course, because it's the one area in which a President has more freedom to spend within the appropriations limits set by Congress.

Also, your effective tax rates are nowhere near that level now, and they have been falling consistently since their high point in 1960 (when you were still paying for World War II, you were only recently extricated from Korea, you were wandering into a misadventure in Vietnam and you were having a pissing contest with the Soviets).


That statement was made in response to Oodain's claim that not having to directly pay for education or healthcare justified such astronomical tax rates. Context , my friend, context!



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

08 Aug 2012, 4:02 pm

JWC wrote:
That statement was made in response to Oodain's claim that not having to directly pay for education or healthcare justified such astronomical tax rates. Context , my friend, context!


Fair enough--but unless Oodain's also claimed that these were the sum total of all benefits received from the existence of government, it is perfectly fair to expand the list.


_________________
--James


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,633
Location: Reading, England

08 Aug 2012, 5:27 pm

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
Directly or indirectly, you're still paying for it. Of course, someone who never had medical issues to pay for would be getting financially raped in a society like that.




How healthy will people who smoke, drink too much alcohol and eat too much be? No amount of government-care will keep them healthy, but we will all pay for their bad habits.

ruveyn

With extra funding, the government can set up agencies to advertise that smoking, drinking and eating too much are not good ideas, and that exercise, drinking in moderation and eating a balanced diet are much better ideas.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

08 Aug 2012, 7:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
With extra funding, the government can set up agencies to advertise that smoking, drinking and eating too much are not good ideas, and that exercise, drinking in moderation and eating a balanced diet are much better ideas.


And that is going to deter the gluttons, drunkards and addicts? Dream on.

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

08 Aug 2012, 9:35 pm

visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
That statement was made in response to Oodain's claim that not having to directly pay for education or healthcare justified such astronomical tax rates. Context , my friend, context!


Fair enough--but unless Oodain's also claimed that these were the sum total of all benefits received from the existence of government, it is perfectly fair to expand the list.


which i never did,

not that it really changes the argument,

even i think there are such a thing as too high a tax, that however doesnt mean one cant acknowledge the multiple reasons why a high tax might be justified.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

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


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,128
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 Aug 2012, 10:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
And that is going to deter the gluttons, drunkards and addicts? Dream on.

ruveyn


As you yourself point out, one of the reasons for Canada's better health indicators is that we have somewhat lower levels of obesity. One of the reasons for that may well be public education. Our drunk driving rates have moved heavily downwards not merely because of criminal sanctions, but also because of sustained public education campaigns.

They will not stop every person from making bad decisions, this is true. But they are not without impact.


_________________
--James


SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Location: Ohio, USA

09 Aug 2012, 6:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
JWC wrote:
Directly or indirectly, you're still paying for it. Of course, someone who never had medical issues to pay for would be getting financially raped in a society like that.




How healthy will people who smoke, drink too much alcohol and eat too much be? No amount of government-care will keep them healthy, but we will all pay for their bad habits.

ruveyn


Actually, smokers contribute a lot more than you think. Not only do they pay for healthcare, they are also taxed heavily on cigarettes. Combine these things with the fact that most die sooner than the rest of the population, and you will see why they aren't the quite burden on society that everybody thinks they are.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Location: Ohio, USA

09 Aug 2012, 6:42 pm

I love how everybody fights over taxes. They are a burden on everybody, and nobody wants to pay, but they still want the services that they provide...FOR FREE. The poor want the rich to pay, and the rich want the poor to pay...heck, somebody's gotta pay. :D


The other problem with this country is wealth distribution. I think I read somewhere that the top 20% control 85% of the wealth in this country. Instead of trying to go to the actual sources of the problem (selfishness, greed, poor regulation, uneducated citizens, etc.), many people in our government try to control this by taxing the wealthy more heavily. I don't think that is the right way to do it.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

13 Aug 2012, 12:48 pm

SilverStar wrote:
I love how everybody fights over taxes. They are a burden on everybody, and nobody wants to pay, but they still want the services that they provide...FOR FREE. The poor want the rich to pay, and the rich want the poor to pay...heck, somebody's gotta pay. :D


The other problem with this country is wealth distribution. I think I read somewhere that the top 20% control 85% of the wealth in this country. Instead of trying to go to the actual sources of the problem (selfishness, greed, poor regulation, uneducated citizens, etc.), many people in our government try to control this by taxing the wealthy more heavily. I don't think that is the right way to do it.


I think that's just the nature of capitalism. Wealth flows uphill and collects at the top just like water flows downhill and collects at the bottom. Ever play monopoly? It's extremely simple. People who own more have greater bargaining leverage than people who own less. Extra bargaining leverage allows them to use their existing wealth to gain an even greater share of wealth. It's an exponential process, like a snowball growing and gaining momentum.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,079
Location: Ohio, USA

13 Aug 2012, 2:28 pm

marshall wrote:
SilverStar wrote:
I love how everybody fights over taxes. They are a burden on everybody, and nobody wants to pay, but they still want the services that they provide...FOR FREE. The poor want the rich to pay, and the rich want the poor to pay...heck, somebody's gotta pay. :D


The other problem with this country is wealth distribution. I think I read somewhere that the top 20% control 85% of the wealth in this country. Instead of trying to go to the actual sources of the problem (selfishness, greed, poor regulation, uneducated citizens, etc.), many people in our government try to control this by taxing the wealthy more heavily. I don't think that is the right way to do it.


I think that's just the nature of capitalism. Wealth flows uphill and collects at the top just like water flows downhill and collects at the bottom. Ever play monopoly? It's extremely simple. People who own more have greater bargaining leverage than people who own less. Extra bargaining leverage allows them to use their existing wealth to gain an even greater share of wealth. It's an exponential process, like a snowball growing and gaining momentum.


That is true. Greed and selfishness also play a big role in wealth accumulation, as well. Instead of giving back some of the excess money that they make to their workers, or the community, etc., they tend to want to hoarde it all for themselves.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,200

13 Aug 2012, 2:37 pm

The rich should pay more but so should everyone else. We havent paid our bills in the US for 30 years. It cracks me up to see adults suggest that they are too good or too principled to pay their bills. That's quite a principle. Do that in your every day life and you'll be living under a bridge real quick.