Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: should the rich be taxed??

  1. #1 should the rich be taxed?? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    i think that the rich should be taxed as if they are normal people this way they don't get to lose there oney that they worked for, and they don't not get taxed becouse that would be foolish and unfair.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    the income tax that already taxes the rich more.

    what about heirs and heiresses?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gilese 581c
    Posts
    20
    The rich should ABSOLUTELY be taxed more than normal people. Not a large amount, but if they are well off, why should they be unhappy to share their money with people less fortunate than them? That's just selfish....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    A flat percentage still means they are paying more than normal people.

    IE. if it were a flat 15%, and I make 10,000 this year and someone else makes 1,000,000 this year, I would pay 1,500 and they would pay 150,000. That's paying more.

    A not flat tax means they're paying exhorbantly more.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Money doesn't seem have an equal value for all people. $100 for a poor person means a lot more than $100 for a rich person.

    After the rich person has bought all life's essentials and a few luxuries, what value does their money hold for them? That's not a rhetorical question, i would actually like to know what people get out of wealth accumulation.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    a twisted sense of superiority? :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    Money doesn't seem have an equal value for all people. $100 for a poor person means a lot more than $100 for a rich person.

    After the rich person has bought all life's essentials and a few luxuries, what value does their money hold for them?
    Nearly absolute security to weather the worst this side of total national collapse if the wealth is in real assets.
    The ability to pave the future for their children with the best schools regardless of their children's inherent abilities, or lack there of.
    Power of many types including political, economic etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Prometheus has hit the nail on the head for what is the most cogent argument for a progressive tax scale. The vast majority of people on the lower tax scale expend the majority of their income on basic needs and shelter.

    Now we have to ask which public services we want to maintain. We want a military, police and fire departments, coast guards, public schools, employment insurance, public pensions, welfare, prisons, and probably a little support for research and the arts. This is the makeup of the modern welfare state, and I quite like that makeup since the alternative is not a very pretty world.

    Now for the amount of money we need to make this system work, a progressive tax scale places a far lower economic burden on the working classes. One might ask why the rich would want to pay these extra taxes. For one, this public spending helps maintain the society which consumes their products, it also stops the country they live in from descending into an anarchic shit hole.

    Moreover, a higher income tax combined with a lower corporate tax helps to promote reinvestment into the economy, which promotes growth. In the absence of this tax differential the rich would be more likely to hold onto their capital and invest it in stocks and real estate.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,294
    Lynx_Fox, since you live in Washington, you should remember Initiative 1077 which dealt with this type of issue.
    For those of you not living in Wa, this Initiative proposed an income tax for essentially wealthiest people living in this state. I think it was like for individuals making in excess of $250,000 a year and couples making in excess of $400,000 a year.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Lynx_Fox, since you live in Washington, you should remember Initiative 1077 which dealt with this type of issue.
    For those of you not living in Wa, this Initiative proposed an income tax for essentially wealthiest people living in this state. I think it was like for individuals making in excess of $250,000 a year and couples making in excess of $400,000 a year.
    It also lowered business taxes which is why I voted for it.

    I think the initiative system is dumb though and risk plunging the state in the same hopeless morass as California because no representatives are allowed to make tough decisions because the citizenry continues to vote for their individual pocketbook rather than for the good of the state.

    My philosophy on taxes is much like tired-sleepy
    "Moreover, a higher income tax combined with a lower corporate tax helps to promote reinvestment into the economy, which promotes growth. In the absence of this tax differential the rich would be more likely to hold onto their capital and invest it in stocks and real estate."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

    Moreover, a higher income tax combined with a lower corporate tax helps to promote reinvestment into the economy, which promotes growth. In the absence of this tax differential the rich would be more likely to hold onto their capital and invest it in stocks and real estate.
    Yeah. Investment in the stock market may help the economy somewhat, but investment in real estate does almost nothing at all to help anyone but the investor them self. If anything, it actually raises rent (because it raises the land values throughout the country), which serves no greater purpose than to put a greater burden on the poor people who have to pay that rent. (Thus increasing the rate at which money flows from poor to wealthy people, without even requiring the wealthy investor to work for the additional income. )
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Lynx_Fox, since you live in Washington, you should remember Initiative 1077 which dealt with this type of issue.
    For those of you not living in Wa, this Initiative proposed an income tax for essentially wealthiest people living in this state. I think it was like for individuals making in excess of $250,000 a year and couples making in excess of $400,000 a year.
    It also lowered business taxes which is why I voted for it.

    I think the initiative system is dumb though and risk plunging the state in the same hopeless morass as California because no representatives are allowed to make tough decisions because the citizenry continues to vote for their individual pocketbook rather than for the good of the state.

    My philosophy on taxes is much like tired-sleepy
    "Moreover, a higher income tax combined with a lower corporate tax helps to promote reinvestment into the economy, which promotes growth. In the absence of this tax differential the rich would be more likely to hold onto their capital and invest it in stocks and real estate."
    I voted yes as well.
    California's main revenue issue stems from the fact that property tax rates were set with a state constitutional amendment, which also limited inflationary adjustment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...tion_13_(1978)
    Constitutional amendments should require at minimum a 2/3 majority by either populist or representative methods.
    Other than this I must profoundly disagree that "the initiative system is dumb".
    I consider it a bastion of proper democracy, one of the last lines of defense of the people against potential oligarchial power structure.
    I can't recall ever seeing a constitutional amendment offered as an initiative in the State of Washington.
    Article 23 of the state constitution covers this.
    http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYR...stitution.aspx
    It appears that a 2/3 majority is required in a legislative body to offer an amendment to the people for majority referendum.
    I could find no mechanism for amendments to be offered by the people.
    I am comfortable with this. I am not comfortable without an initiative process.
    After all, any initiative offered is still subject to constitutional law and judicial review.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    America should be ashamed of its gargantuan and impossibly complex tax codes that require computers to understand and implement.

    Income taxes should be flat across all income brackets, and the deductions for the rich eliminated. For example, deductions for mortgage interest for second homes should be eliminated because, if you're rich enough to own a second home, then it's a luxury, not a necessity --- literally live with it.

    Income is income no matter how it's attained (wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, etc), and whether capital gains are long-term or short-term shouldn't matter. However, inheritances should never be taxed as it is not income per se, but wealth merely transferred from a dead person to a living person, mostly likely a relative, usually a relative.

    The grunt-level people who actually do the work need to survive, and there's no sense of justice for them when they can't figure out (without a computer or tax specialist) why they owe the government a certain amount of money in taxes.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360
    Lynx_Fox, since you live in Washington, you should remember Initiative 1077 which dealt with this type of issue.
    For those of you not living in Wa, this Initiative proposed an income tax for essentially wealthiest people living in this state. I think it was like for individuals making in excess of $250,000 a year and couples making in excess of $400,000 a year.
    It also lowered business taxes which is why I voted for it.

    I think the initiative system is dumb though and risk plunging the state in the same hopeless morass as California because no representatives are allowed to make tough decisions because the citizenry continues to vote for their individual pocketbook rather than for the good of the state.

    My philosophy on taxes is much like tired-sleepy
    "Moreover, a higher income tax combined with a lower corporate tax helps to promote reinvestment into the economy, which promotes growth. In the absence of this tax differential the rich would be more likely to hold onto their capital and invest it in stocks and real estate."
    I voted for it too. But apparently there were too many dumb-asses in our state that fell for the anti-initiative 1077 ads that claimed "You give Olympia an inch, you give them a mile." It would have helped our state significantly. I completely agree with you and tired-sleepy.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I don't think California was getting much from property taxes in the 70s. Most states don't get anything.

    How many times has California raises taxes regardless of the need?

    There were three revenue raising initiatives on the ballet in Washington state last year...none of them got through. The problem is nothing to reduces services gets through either. This is why direct democracy is a recipe for disaster for most issues.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    We still have a legislature to implement taxes and provide cut's if necessary.
    Anyhow, austerity measures are not the way to dig out of a recession.
    The Great Depression and the subsequent New Deal are a clear lesson from history concerning this. Zero investment net's zero return.
    If someone doesn't like the initiative process, then maybe they shouldn't vote on initiatives.
    Goddamned democracy, always getting in the way of the return to the gilded age.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I don't think California was getting much from property taxes in the 70s. Most states don't get anything.

    How many times has California raises taxes regardless of the need?

    There were three revenue raising initiatives on the ballet in Washington state last year...none of them got through. The problem is nothing to reduces services gets through either. This is why direct democracy is a recipe for disaster for most issues.

    Yeah. Leave it up to the masses and they'll vote to put the tax burden on Santa Clause, or the Easter Bunny, or better yet: the Tooth Fairy.

    After all, where does she get all those dollars to put under childrens' pillows? She must be pretty wealthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    We still have a legislature to implement taxes and provide cut's if necessary.
    Any legislator who votes to overturn a direct mandate from the masses is pretty much shooting his political career right in the foot, though.

    Anyhow, austerity measures are not the way to dig out of a recession.
    The Great Depression and the subsequent New Deal are a clear lesson from history concerning this. Zero investment net's zero return.
    If someone doesn't like the initiative process, then maybe they shouldn't vote on initiatives.
    Goddamned democracy, always getting in the way of the return to the gilded age.
    I'm almost tempted to be in favor of a partial return to guilds. A guild business has almost guaranteed profitability, which is a really nice way to get all those skittish investors to divert a few dollars away from their gold and land, and try actually helping to build up the nation's businesses again.

    Gold and land are taking the place of the mattress as a stagnant place to put money.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    I said "gilded", not "guilded".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age
    The Wiki article is lacking the proper negative connotation I attach to "gilded age" so check this out.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_...industrialist)
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •