Ready for the Roundup?

f series

f series

Well-Known Member
topcat said:
Would you vote to raise taxes on the rich in order to pay for that?
Click to expand...
I don't know current tax rates or brackets, but I guess I need to know what rich means to you, because I think 200k+ is rich. I don't think they should be taxed unfairly either.

I don't think the choices should be: give all Riches away, or stay poor and collect others riches.

Do you think rich should be taxed higher to pay for everyone else? And how much should they be taxed, if you have a thought on it.
 
topcat

topcat

Well-Known Member
f series said:
I don't know current tax rates or brackets, but I guess I need to know what rich means to you, because I think 200k+ is rich. I don't think they should be taxed unfairly either.

I don't think the choices should be: give all Riches away, or stay poor and collect others riches.

Do you think rich should be taxed higher to pay for everyone else? And how much should they be taxed, if you have a thought on it.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a "no".
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
f series said:
I don't know current tax rates or brackets, but I guess I need to know what rich means to you, because I think 200k+ is rich. I don't think they should be taxed unfairly either.

I don't think the choices should be: give all Riches away, or stay poor and collect others riches.

Do you think rich should be taxed higher to pay for everyone else? And how much should they be taxed, if you have a thought on it.
Click to expand...
Your false dilemma about taxing "Richies or staying poor while living off taxes" doesn't justify anything, especially doesn't justify keeping taxes low for the wealthiest in this country.

The US currently raises revenue at about 18% of GDP. Britain, Sweden, Japan, Gemany, France all collect between 27% to as high as 42% of GDP (France). These are not failing nations. Their tax burdens are hardly crippling. If the US increased it's tax burden by between 7% and 10% it could wipe out the deficit. We could then start working on ways to reduce the debt, which over time will take care of itself because we will be paying off the debt over 30 years or so. So, rationally, somewhere between 25% to 28% of GDP will do. It wouldn't have to all be income taxes that are raised. Inceasing government's cut on inherited wealth and closing loopholes that wealthy people use to avoid paying that tax would be an example of alternatives. A 45% tax rate on all capital gains and a 45% income tax rate on high incomes (your $200,000 as the threshold for that should be acceptable) would not be unprecedented among nations similar to the US. Below 200k income, a regressive taxation scale would apply to everybody else down to the current cut-offs for zero income tax. Other countries with strong economies have low debt compared to us, so, let's learn from them.

There is a good write-up (see link below) but I don't think you'll read it. I'll post it for completeness anyway.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2013/01/08/we-could-balance-the-budget-via-revenue-alone

Your post had a second logical fallacy that should be pointed out and laughed at too. Its not a matter of "rich being taxed to pay for everyone else". It's a matter of ability to pay, the need to achieve fiscal health and fairness in that the people who most benefit from what this country offers should pay the most.
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Your false dilemma about taxing "Richies or staying poor while living off taxes" doesn't justify anything, especially doesn't justify keeping taxes low for the wealthiest in this country.

The US currently raises revenue at about 18% of GDP. Britain, Sweden, Japan, Gemany, France all collect between 27% to as high as 42% of GDP (France). These are not failing nations. Their tax burdens are hardly crippling. If the US increased it's tax burden by between 7% and 10% it could wipe out the deficit. We could then start working on ways to reduce the debt, which over time will take care of itself because we will be paying off the debt over 30 years or so. So, rationally, somewhere between 25% to 28% of GDP will do. It wouldn't have to all be income taxes that are raised. Inceasing government's cut on inherited wealth and closing loopholes that wealthy people use to avoid paying that tax would be an example of alternatives. A 45% tax rate on all capital gains and a 45% income tax rate on high incomes (your $200,000 as the threshold for that should be acceptable) would not be unprecedented among nations similar to the US. Below 200k income, a regressive taxation scale would apply to everybody else down to the current cut-offs for zero income tax. Other countries with strong economies have low debt compared to us, so, let's learn from them.

There is a good write-up (see link below) but I don't think you'll read it. I'll post it for completeness anyway.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2013/01/08/we-could-balance-the-budget-via-revenue-alone

Your post had a second logical fallacy that should be pointed out and laughed at too. Its not a matter of "rich being taxed to pay for everyone else". It's a matter of ability to pay, the need to achieve fiscal health and fairness in that the people who most benefit from what this country offers should pay the most.
Click to expand...
The wealthy have obviously gained the most so they can pay the most.
 
D

DaFreak

Well-Known Member
Federal, state, property and other taxes combined I think the rich are paying pretty high. Over 50% some places. What would you like to see? I’m more concerned with corporate and havens etc.
 
Moses Mobetta

Moses Mobetta

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Your false dilemma about taxing "Richies or staying poor while living off taxes" doesn't justify anything, especially doesn't justify keeping taxes low for the wealthiest in this country.


There is a good write-up (see link below) but I don't think you'll read it. I'll post it for completeness anyway.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2013/01/08/we-could-balance-the-budget-via-revenue-alone

Your post had a second logical fallacy that should be pointed out and laughed at too. Its not a matter of "rich being taxed to pay for everyone else". It's a matter of ability to pay, the need to achieve fiscal health and fairness in that the people who most benefit from what this country offers should pay the most.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they got the working poor paying for all these rich bastards shit, but some people think that makes sense
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DaFreak said:
Socialism does. Private health care co-exists. Not very popular
Click to expand...
blu3bird said:
I know, it seems to me that a certain element of society wants socialism instead, they want government to provide them free shit. As a matter of fact, I believe that you just claimed a few posts back that America needs more socialism? No thanks, not here.


As for me, I fucking love freedom and independence. I'll vote against socialism every chance I get.

I'd like the freedom of choice to choose my own health insurance, socialism doesn't afford me that freedom.
Click to expand...
America is not as free and independent as some other countries.
We have Medicare (state funded) and Private health insurance. They do work hand in hand pretty well. Helps to keep Private Health insurance prices in check as well because you can drop out and not be much worse off. Its also a money maker for the Public hospitals who can charge private health insurance companies to use their facilities.
Social Democracy is a nice middle ground.
 
f series

f series

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Your false dilemma about taxing "Richies or staying poor while living off taxes" doesn't justify anything, especially doesn't justify keeping taxes low for the wealthiest in this country.

The US currently raises revenue at about 18% of GDP. Britain, Sweden, Japan, Gemany, France all collect between 27% to as high as 42% of GDP (France). These are not failing nations. Their tax burdens are hardly crippling. If the US increased it's tax burden by between 7% and 10% it could wipe out the deficit. We could then start working on ways to reduce the debt, which over time will take care of itself because we will be paying off the debt over 30 years or so. So, rationally, somewhere between 25% to 28% of GDP will do. It wouldn't have to all be income taxes that are raised. Inceasing government's cut on inherited wealth and closing loopholes that wealthy people use to avoid paying that tax would be an example of alternatives. A 45% tax rate on all capital gains and a 45% income tax rate on high incomes (your $200,000 as the threshold for that should be acceptable) would not be unprecedented among nations similar to the US. Below 200k income, a regressive taxation scale would apply to everybody else down to the current cut-offs for zero income tax. Other countries with strong economies have low debt compared to us, so, let's learn from them.

There is a good write-up (see link below) but I don't think you'll read it. I'll post it for completeness anyway.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2013/01/08/we-could-balance-the-budget-via-revenue-alone

Your post had a second logical fallacy that should be pointed out and laughed at too. Its not a matter of "rich being taxed to pay for everyone else". It's a matter of ability to pay, the need to achieve fiscal health and fairness in that the people who most benefit from what this country offers should pay the most.
Click to expand...
Your false dilemma about taxing "They make more, so they should pay more" doesn't justify anything
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
f series said:
Your false dilemma about taxing "They make more, so they should pay more" doesn't justify anything
Click to expand...
It actually does. In fact its the norm in most countries.
Now as a once higher income earner ill let you in on a secret. Because people earn more they have more investments. Investments that help minimise tax and create wealth. This means that the taxable income they claim is normally less than the true figure of what they earned. (Its also the reason that Trump doesn't want his income tax made public as he would not of paid very much at all/if any). This means that to tax them at around the same rate of an avg income earner you have to have a higher %.

But someone with a higher disposable income should pay more. Its fair, just like its fair that someone on a minimum wage should pay little or no tax. This means any disposable income they have goes back into the local economy. Local economies drive the larger economies and create local jobs. Its one of the reasons why Walmart and similar are bad.

I believe their is a country/s that has takin that one step further and fines (like for driving and shit) is based on a fixed % of their income. Which when u think about it is very fair. Not many millionaires worry or adjust their driving habits with a measly $300 fine, $30,000 fine? u betcha.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
 
Last edited:
D

DaFreak

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
of course you do, you're a right winger pretending you aren't you little weasel fraud
Click to expand...
Simple question, how much do you think they should pay? I think close to 60% is pretty high but I want to know what you think so why not answer?

Do you think that’s too low? Does that make me a right winger in your mind?

In japan it maxes out at around 45%, are we all right wingers? I really am starting to believe you guys are just idiots who want to blame anybody but yourselves and stick it to the rich, and that’s not a political ideal, that’s just ignorant,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top