TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- should high-income earners get taxed more than everyone else?
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

A flat tax system would be completely awful, as would not taxing investments. The idea that we shouldn't tax high-income earners more than the poor is also completely ridiculous.

That said, we (USA) should be lowering income and payroll taxes right now. We're not out of this economic slump, yet.

Yes, they should pay more. I don�t see the contentious part of this statement.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yes, they should pay more. I don�t see the contentious part of this statement.

It comes from the crazy part of the American psyche that declares that taxes are terrible things and we shouldn't have any at all; that all taxes are stealing from us. Which itself comes from a complete misunderstanding of history, philosophy, and biology.

Yeah, you yanks certainly are a strange lot

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN You're the one mixing your points as such; With the fixed %, The higher earners aren't "paying more taxes". That's a misnomer. They are paying the same as it's all relative to income, but even worse, the cost of things aren't relative, hence why a flat % is an advantage for people who earn more.

Yes re-reading it now your point makes sense. I was just so focused on when you said "fixed fee/ denomination amount" A huge difference between that and a fixed perecentage.


I just wanted to be clear on this point


90,000 is greater than 9,000

so they are paying more taxes because they earn more. That is a fixed percentage scenario..



Now marginal rates say that instead of paying 90,000 the percentage is hiked over a certain income and thus they are gouged twice.

Not only are they paying higher taxes because they earn more, but they are paying higher taxes because they also have a higher marginal rate.

Double gouge.

i agree with the concept of having marginal rates. But i do think that higher taxation hinders business opportunity, especially if it is heavily imposed on investment. Luckily, if you have a good accountant and are knowledgeable, you are able to afford yourself some decent tax breaks. This is one of the reasons why businesses in the US and Canada are so successful. You can ask anyone who owns a substantial business this question and they will agree.

Proportionately the wealthy may pay more or less, but disproportionately they are still wealthy. It's not as though they print the money themselves- the opportunities to "earn" are dearly facilitated by a vast complex of governmental services that absolutely require funding to perpetuate the cycle.

Obviously in the case of the US, a great deal of wasteful spending by the government needs to be simultaneously addressed, but calling upon the wealthy to give back to the very system that made them wealthy is not "gouging"; in fact I challenge anyone to come up with a scenario in which they are not given a fair price for what government provides for them, save for cases of obvious corruption or national collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Here's why. With a fixed %, they guy that earns $300k still walks away with $210k whereas the other walks away with $21k. The person that earns more can afford to give more away to taxes without significantly affect their quality of life, the person earning less can't. The person earning 300k can easily afford to give up another 10% or $21k - they still have $190 left. A decent car still costs $20-30k. That's one month's income to the high earner or an entire year for the low earner in this scenario, and that's before taxes. Suddenly after a flat tax rate, that 1.5 to two year's for then low earner, and just a paltry 2 months for the high earner. See what I'm getting at? The higher earners can afford to pay more as a % and as a figure.

I know I'm probably coming off as ignorant, but this is what I don't get...

$20K-$30K is what a brand new car costs.

If you are making that little moneywise, maybe you shouldn't be buying a brand new car? Maybe you need to do the prudent thing and instead of trying to live a lifestyle you can't afford be smarter with your money?

I am not a rich person, but I think that is the real underlying issue for me. I am not in favor of the uber rich getting tax breaks and hiding money to pay a lower tax rate, but i'm also not in favor of people getting a free ride either. sure there are people out there that are unable to contribute so as someone suggested have a minimum ceiling of people earning below that don't pay. what's wrong with everyone above that contributing at a similar rate?

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller I know I'm probably coming off as ignorant, but this is what I don't get... $20K-$30K is what a brand new car costs. If you are making that little moneywise, maybe you shouldn't be buying a brand new car? Maybe you need to do the prudent thing and instead of trying to live a lifestyle you can't afford be smarter with your money? I am not a rich person, but I think that is the real underlying issue for me. I am not in favor of the uber rich getting tax breaks and hiding money to pay a lower tax rate, but i'm also not in favor of people getting a free ride either. sure there are people out there that are unable to contribute so as someone suggested have a minimum ceiling of people earning below that don't pay. what's wrong with everyone above that contributing at a similar rate?

Your problem is that you are equating a "similar rate" to a "fair rate," which isn't necessarily the case.

I believe in high income.

how much does child rape pay?

some of you have i'm sure already seen this, but someone showed it to me today and it made me think of this thread....





yeah fuck the rich they can def pay more lol...

Income tax is a terrible system of taxation... far too complicated, too many loop-holes, etc. A far better system of taxation is consumption tax. Replacing income tax with consumption tax eliminates the problem of not being able to tax persons with undisclosed income, makes the system very straight forward, closes loop-holes, and is by nature a progressive tax as persons who earn higher incomes generally spend more money. I would imagine there needs to be a method of exempting people who earn a subsistance or below poverty income; however, this should not be too difficult to figure out.

I miss being a student at tax time, oh man.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Income tax is a terrible system of taxation... far too complicated, too many loop-holes, etc. A far better system of taxation is consumption tax. Replacing income tax with consumption tax eliminates the problem of not being able to tax persons with undisclosed income, makes the system very straight forward, closes loop-holes, and is by nature a progressive tax as persons who earn higher incomes generally spend more money.

The term "progressive" typically means an increasing rate, not just an increasing amount. People who earn more generally do not spend a higher *percentage* of their income -- just the opposite. So a consumption tax would not be progressive with respect to income at all, and would in most cases be regressive.

quote:

Originally posted by Vector A The term "progressive" typically means an increasing rate, not just an increasing amount. People who earn more generally do not spend a higher *percentage* of their income -- just the opposite. So a consumption tax would not be progressive with respect to income at all, and would in most cases be regressive.

Very good point. It would also be incredibly easy, more so than income, to hide the real figure of what you spend or "consume".

Does everyone realize that all the recent fuss about the taxes going up, was simply a change of 3.9% for people who earn more than $400,000 a year?

And it going up to a *shock*horror* 39.6% makes it the lowest, top marginal rate in the developed world. You could raise it another 10% and it still wouldn't mean a mass exodus of people. They'd be running to any other country that has the same if not higher taxes.

If anyone is up for a long-ish read this NY'er piece about Eric Cantor articulates where the current financial policies have gone so badly wrong and why fiscal conservatism, at least the brand we have now, along with trickledown economics is doomed.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/...a#ixzz2MQ4mHDrq

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Very good point. It would also be incredibly easy, more so than income, to hide the real figure of what you spend or "consume".

I agree, Vector had a good point; however, that is why I stated the very poor would need to be exempt. I am confused by your post though. How would it be easier to hide your consumption than your income. We're talking sales tax here... it would be tacked onto everything one purchases (perhaps excluding certain grociery items and other necessities like heating fuel, etc). If you're charging the tax at the register (sort of speak) it is way more difficult to avoid the tax than say setting up tax shelters or incorporating and reporting your personal income as dividends, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I agree, Vector had a good point; however, that is why I stated the very poor would need to be exempt. I am confused by your post though. How would it be easier to hide your consumption than your income. We're talking sales tax here... it would be tacked onto everything one purchases (perhaps excluding certain grociery items and other necessities like heating fuel, etc). If you're charging the tax at the register (sort of speak) it is way more difficult to avoid the tax than say setting up tax shelters or incorporating and reporting your personal income as dividends, no?

There's a million ways to hide consumption (which I'll get in to), and the problem with your idea is that it would shift the tax burden even moreso to the consumer or individual, and unfortunately poor or at least normal earners are the ones who suffer in these instances, because they can't afford expensive CPA's and financial advisers to get around it, unlike the rich (in the same way wealthy people now can avoid taxes etc).

We already have sales tax (and fuel tax and gov surcharges etc etc etc), and there is evidence to suggest that beyond a certain point it does actually affect spending and negatively harms the economy. I know whenever I go back to the UK, I really curb my shopping on the things I can't claim the VAT back on as 21% is a bitter chunk of change out of my pocket.

The heavy consumption tax model also massively benefits, and even encourages, businesses and people to circumvent sales tax. It heavily benefits cash only trading and money laundering as they never report and this in turn encourages grey or black markets to thrive which opens up another whole can of worms. It's incredibly difficult to regulate especially with complex organizations and in that respect income/earning/capital gains tax is far easier to regulate and enforce.

Sure, I think there should be a sales tax (as we already have) but as a general replacement for income tax? No. It's also still unfair in one respect; the poor or middle earners would still have to pay it as a flat % fee and proportionately to the rich another 10% on goods is nothing, especially as they could find ways to avoid the tax (buying through companies that are exempt, importing good from othr countries etc).

The problem is not the idea of income tax;
At the moment our tax system is biased towards burden on the citizen. GE, a multi-billion dollar company have managed to pay zero taxes for several years by smart accounting, loopholes and tax incentives, because simply put, they can afford to hire an army of CPA's and lawyers.

The average employee can not, so they get fucked.

Same thing goes with the very wealthy. I know one businessman that runs one of his companies at a loss on purpose, so he can offset all his other earnings, as that business has all sorts of weird write offs, much more than his other profitable businesses. Again, he already takes full advantage of buying things through this company to avoid sale tax so your idea of consumption tax would benefit him even more.

The problem is the loop holes & deductions and the fact that tax is not applied to overall income. Why you or I pay double the tax rate of someone like Mitt Romney is inexcusable.

The only sensible model (and I have no idea why people have such a hard time grasping this) is that people that earn more can afford to pay more and those that earn less should have less burden.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN The only sensible model (and I have no idea why people have such a hard time grasping this) is that people that earn more can afford to pay more and those that earn less should have less burden.

they already do pay more. you just believe that they should be taxed at a higher rate.

mit romney pays much more tax in 1 year than a majority of people will probably pay in their lifetime.

1.94 MILLION in 2011


That was just 1 year.


you make investments, take capital losses, make donations you better damn right get some tax deductions.


I completely disagree with taxing investments thoruhg the nose. Especially since a majority of investors do not have much to contribute to the markets, you're going to nail them with normal marginal brackets? I'd say fuck investing at that point and might as well fuck the economy.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit they already do pay more. you just believe that they should be taxed at a higher rate. mit romney pays much more tax in 1 year than a majority of people will probably pay in their lifetime. 1.94 MILLION in 2011 That was just 1 year.

HE MADE $42,000,000 THAT YEAR!

He paid an unbelievably low rate of just 13% tax. That's not "more:. That's less than you or I pay relative to our income.

You're doing that annoying republicVnt thing of repeating a fallacy in the hopes that it comes true.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit you make investments, take capital losses, make donations you better damn right get some tax deductions.

Sure capital losses. Sure deductions for investing. Even Donations (although I think only about 5% of organizations that receive charity status should actually qualify but that's a different matter.

But let's stop that myth right here - when you understand his tax returns, you'll see he's not shaving his tax rate with donations and capital losses.

He works the system by making sure his earnings are 95% capital gains which is taxed at an incredulously low 15% before deductions.

He then uses a bunch of loopholes, offshore transactions and profit hiding to knock another 2% off that.

So tell me why, when we both earn six figures, we pay higher taxes than someone earning eight figures?

It's honestly bizarre that people like you think it's OK for people that earn this much to pay such a little relative amount. And bear in mind that $42,000,000 (and note I'm writing out all the digits to remind you just how fucking big that number is) is the official figure. That does not include the offshore assets he has in the caymens (which is legally only allowed for foreign (non US) investors yet he somehow gets to keep it) or the swiss accounts which to this day have never been revealed. And again, that's only the secret stuff we were allowed to know about.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I completely disagree with taxing investments thoruhg the nose. Especially since a majority of investors do not have much to contribute to the markets, you're going to nail them with normal marginal brackets? I'd say fuck investing at that point and might as well fuck the economy.

If this economic downturn taught us anything, it's that investors do fuck all for the market anyway. They drove the economy off a cliff with terrible investment, and then they couldn't "invest" us out of it. Instead they went running to the government for a subsidy. Even now, investors, financial insitutions and major companies are sitting on more cash than ever before (which is actually a good thing), so lets not pretend that investors drive the market. They feed off the market and make money from it.

It's not a good idea to tax investments themselves, but gains of which? most certainly. You make money from them. Ridiculous sums if done right, why would you not pay tax on it of that is how you earn?

Do people stop going to work because they have to pay tax?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN HE MADE $42,000,000 THAT YEAR! He paid an unbelievably low rate of just 13% tax. That's not "more:. That's less than you or I pay relative to our income. You're doing that annoying republicVnt thing of repeating a fallacy in the hopes that it comes true.

I don't think you give enough weight to a dollar being a dollar.

He made that dollar fair and square AND he is contributing more money towards taxation than over 130 people making 50,000 dollars lets say on an average tax rate of 30%

130 fucking people! Now sure that marginal rate seems low, but if all his money is comming from investments that's fair.

If you did the same thing with less money you as well would be paying an even lower rate than you currently pay.

quote:

Sure capital losses. Sure deductions for investing. Even Donations (although I think only about 5% of organizations that receive charity status should actually qualify but that's a different matter. But let's stop that myth right here - when you understand his tax returns, you'll see he's not shaving his tax rate with donations and capital losses. He works the system by making sure his earnings are 95% capital gains which is taxed at an incredulously low 15% before deductions.

so why cry about it? why don't you do the same thing. See how easy it is to make your earnings 95% capital gains. Try to make them even 10%; and you'll realize the necessity of having investments taxed at a low rate.

We have the right idea in canada where we can actually have accounts which we can invest TAX FREE.

thats right. I can turn 25,000 to 50,000 to 100,000 without paying a dime in tax. Why does the canadian govt do this? because they want to stimulate the economy with investments.

If everyone just sat there and hoarded their money in their pocket, there would be no opportunity, no demand for goods and probably a shit load of deflation.

I think people need to stop harping on those that do well and make a good life for themselves and instead look at some of those people who truly are destroying the economy; Particularily those who are severely living beyond their means.

Those who declare bankrupcy and drain their debts on society; those who hold tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debts. Those who drain the welfare system buy the newest iphone and then complain about corporations and unfair taxrates slothing around in their burkenstocks.

quote:

He then uses a bunch of loopholes, offshore transactions and profit hiding to knock another 2% off that. So tell me why, when we both earn six figures, we pay higher taxes than someone earning eight figures?

I don't earn six figures, i earn 5. And i can sometimes get an overall tax rate of less than 11 % (last year) that's my total taxes paid divided by my total income earned after investments as well (which was 30% of my annual income).

I can't live off investing income, but i'm damn happy that the government doesnt gouge me to shit with taxes to the point where i'm unable to diversify my income.

I also pay a mortgage which i don't write off, so the extra income comes in handy.

So there you have it. 2012 i paied less income tax than mitt romney; i don't see him complaining.

quote:

It's honestly bizarre that people like you think it's OK for people that earn this much to pay such a little relative amount. And bear in mind that $42,000,000 (and note I'm writing out all the digits to remind you just how fucking big that number is) is the official figure. That does not include the offshore assets he has in the caymens (which is legally only allowed for foreign (non US) investors yet he somehow gets to keep it) or the swiss accounts which to this day have never been revealed. And again, that's only the secret stuff we were allowed to know about.

still more taxes than i paid (and i'm talking about RATE). and you talk about it like its some illegal shit. You can do that shit too, not to that extent, but you can do it. He EARNED that money, he didnt fucking steal it.

quote:

If this economic downturn taught us anything, it's that investors do fuck all for the market anyway. They drove the economy off a cliff with terrible investment, and then they couldn't "invest" us out of it. Instead they went running to the government for a subsidy. Even now, investors, financial insitutions and major companies are sitting on more cash than ever before (which is actually a good thing), so lets not pretend that investors drive the market. They feed off the market and make money from it. It's not a good idea to tax investments themselves, but gains of which? most certainly. You make money from them. Ridiculous sums if done right, why would you not pay tax on it of that is how you earn? Do people stop going to work because they have to pay tax?

The mortgage holders who are partially the victims are also to blame for the downturn (Don't forget that). You are fucking leveraging yourlself to shit with your house thinking that it can only go up in value? Thats like thinking the stock market only goes up. Your house is 1 big fucking stock that you live in. No more no less.

Then when the going gets tough and your mortgage is worth more than hte value of the house - you default? Well thank you very much; had i knew what i fucking knew now then i would have shorted the fucking dow all the way to 7k. back in 08


anyways a bit of a rant here. Just want to vocalize that there are two sides to the story here. And the fact is that mitt romney still paid a shit load of taxes; more than that of 130 medium to high income earners combined.

Do i think we need some more regulation ? yes. Higher marginal tax rates? perhaps. Higher investment taxation? definitely not.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/new...y/obama-budget/

There needs to be a significantly higher tax burden in the US for those making over a million a year in salary income.

Even more so there needs to be significantly higher taxes on capital gains over 500k to a million a year. There is no need to be making that much money as an individual or a family and capital gains is money that requires no direct labor (and I use that term broadly to include services) from the person receiving that income. It is money for money's sake and should be taxed at rates close to 80-90% on individuals.

I don't understand this obsession with hording money in this country. It boggles my mind. We could have so much more fucking awesome stuff and a much more equitable and stable and wealthy middle class, that in turn could spend much more of their money on the goods and services that make the rich even more rich (or at least able to enjoy a significantly more easy life).

Government spending is the answer to economic doldrums and problems, austerity has NEVER worked. The proof is in the pudding and we have to many idiots who eat the Austrian economic tripe and follow cult leaders like Rothbard and crew.

Thank god Thatcher is dead, I hope she joins zombie Reagan on a quest to fuck up whatever after life that probably isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit you make investments, take capital losses, make donations you better damn right get some tax deductions.

100 percent agree. their spending is what fuels the ecnomony, not our 100 dollar purchase of an ipod. These are the guys that spend the money on physical capital and financial capital that are used to produce the goods and services that drive our economy. They should definitely get tax breaks aka incentives to do more of it.

Increased tobacco tax = more money for preschools.

So all you smokers out there can brag about how you help support children's education!

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy 100 percent agree. their spending is what fuels the ecnomony, not our 100 dollar purchase of an ipod. These are the guys that spend the money on physical capital and financial capital that are used to produce the goods and services that drive our economy. They should definitely get tax breaks aka incentives to do more of it.

You're an idiot.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.