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 »

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit 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.

Percentage wise he did not though. That is the problem. Any way you cut it, as a percentage he came out with more money. His total tax burden is therefor less than that of a huge chunk of people making far less actual dollars.

That is unfair.

Capital gains is bullshit. It is rarely reinvested and it is often the sole source of income for a lot of these high earners and they just horde it away, never doing anything with it, and then passing it on to their children who will most likely do nothing or do the same thing that their parents did, either way not contributing to the greater economy.

and you don't even have a basic macroeconomics education. So why don't you drop out of your community college, say goodbye to the few underprivileged friends you made while living off your papa's dollar trying to fit in, pop into a university figure out what you have to do have your application accepted and spend your next 6 months doing that to get yourself a higher education. Fuck your devry degree, your Icdc degree, fuck it maybe just transfer into a trade school to get a red seal trade under your belt and finally add something to the society instead of commenting on it like you know what the fuck actually happens in the world because you have read a few articles off of wikipedia.

fuck it at this point I would rather listen to BTG's views on taxation at least he contributes to the system.

To be honest I think there should be a maximum income combined with a varying scale of tax-free savings that goes into a trust for your children, with the number of children limited to four (which in my opinion is overly generous).

I feel that there should be a maximum income of 500k a year, with a sliding scale of tax-free savings from 500k to a million a year in that you can take an additional percentage of your income and have it put into a tax-free savings account that acts like a trust fund to your children. For each child you can contribute say from 10 down to 2 percent as your income increase and your number of children increase (this helps provide an incentive for people to have less children as well).

It is an incredibly simple tax system (thats what conservatives want right?) that makes income tax basically a cliffs edge. The amount would adjust for inflation every 10 years to keep up with that, and it'd work. No family, especially no new family starting out today, needs more than 500k a year, even in the most expensive parts of the US. You can afford an incredibly nice house.

I would also limit sole income to 250k a year.

No tax-free savings amount with no children.

vote for nou! maximum wage! brilliant idea!


fuckin moron

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby To be honest I think there should be a maximum income combined with a varying scale of tax-free savings that goes into a trust for your children, with the number of children limited to four (which in my opinion is overly generous). I feel that there should be a maximum income of 500k a year, with a sliding scale of tax-free savings from 500k to a million a year in that you can take an additional percentage of your income and have it put into a tax-free savings account that acts like a trust fund to your children. For each child you can contribute say from 10 down to 2 percent as your income increase and your number of children increase (this helps provide an incentive for people to have less children as well). It is an incredibly simple tax system (thats what conservatives want right?) that makes income tax basically a cliffs edge. The amount would adjust for inflation every 10 years to keep up with that, and it'd work. No family, especially no new family starting out today, needs more than 500k a year, even in the most expensive parts of the US. You can afford an incredibly nice house. I would also limit sole income to 250k a year. No tax-free savings amount with no children.

I just want to have this quoted for future reference in case he tries to delete it

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy and you don't even have a basic macroeconomics education. So why don't you drop out of your community college, say goodbye to the few underprivileged friends you made while living off your papa's dollar trying to fit in, pop into a university figure out what you have to do have your application accepted and spend your next 6 months doing that to get yourself a higher education. Fuck your devry degree, your Icdc degree, fuck it maybe just transfer into a trade school to get a red seal trade under your belt and finally add something to the society instead of commenting on it like you know what the fuck actually happens in the world because you have read a few articles off of wikipedia.

To be honest, the Canadians talking in this thread about how to do economics just makes me laugh. You have no idea how good you have it, and to see you want to go and fuck it up. Do it. Become like the US. Enjoy an ever declining quality of life and run towards the mundane and uninitiated.

A strong consumer base is what drives a capitalist economy. Investment comes from expanding existing industry to new markets (and that doesn't mean just physically, it means across class levels as well) and creating new markets. Nothing says that the money to do that comes solely from private investment by individuals. It should be the job of corporations and other business entities, along with government help in basic research and development to do so.

Providing free health care, subsidized higher education, and building a robust and modern infrastructure to handle economic and social demand increases the amount of money that the individual has to purchase goods. It is incredibly simple. Macro-economics, outside of the logistical fields like supplier issues is NOT HARD. It is incredibly simple, it has a strong history of what works, and the idiots trying to suggest things that have never worked are just fucking nut jobs or have some sort of authoritarian agenda (read libertarians).

So yea, you are an idiot who is spouting shit from people who literally are insane. They ignore history, they ignore present day examples, and they spout shit that idiots like you Eric believe to be true because one day it might make you better off. Quit being a millionaire who is down on his luck and instead realize you are most likely going to be at most an upper-middle class consumer like a huge portion of the rest of us and start realizing that YOU are what drives an economy, not your ideal.

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy I just want to have this quoted for future reference in case he tries to delete it

Why would I delete it?

.

quote:

Originally posted by clay whats the point working hard if your taxed more? fucking communist thinking. all the talents left norway sitting left with people who dont care about anything.

quoted for truth

...reason why I'll never work in Sweden (home-land) once university is done.

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy quoted for truth

The point, at least in the US, is that like 90% of the highest earners make the bulk of their money through capital gains, which are taxed a lot LESS than normal people. So they're making more money and being taxed less.

Is that, like, sports betting?

Oops There was an office pool going around today about who the batter was when Jackie Robinson stole home against the Yankees in the World Series, so I had sports on my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Percentage wise he did not though. That is the problem. Any way you cut it, as a percentage he came out with more money. His total tax burden is therefor less than that of a huge chunk of people making far less actual dollars.

a dollar is still a dollar. At an equal percentage, he is still paying more dollars, now by increasing the percentage he will pay even more on a multiplicative level.

130 medium income earners he is covering for! But i'll digress from this point, as higher marginal rates i'm in agreement with to a reasonable degree.

quote:

Capital gains is bullshit. It is rarely reinvested and it is often the sole source of income for a lot of these high earners and they just horde it away, never doing anything with it, and then passing it on to their children who will most likely do nothing or do the same thing that their parents did, either way not contributing to the greater economy.

that is the biggest crock of shit, are you going to park your money in high interest savings at 1.25% interest annually if you are hoarding money? or are you going to reinvest it. I'll tell you right now if someone has a ton of cash, they are going to re-invest it. Hence why lower capital gains tax encourages investment and re-investment.


when inflation is higher than what you can get by hoarding your cash in savings, you would be silly to not re-invest it.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 The point, at least in the US, is that like 90% of the highest earners make the bulk of their money through capital gains, which are taxed a lot LESS than normal people. So they're making more money and being taxed less.

So that tells you that more people should invest their money and pay less taxes.

This isn't rocket science LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by clay the elite will always find ways to avoid getting ripped off by their stupid governement while working class will always suffer. those in the middle dont care and focus on having a nice life.

alot of the "elite" are/were actually working class people who were smart with their money.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On No Yes, the wealthier should be taxed at a substantially higher rate because they are the ones who most benefit from the vast infrastructure made almost solely possible by the provisions of taxation in the first place. It is true that some bust their ass and make their own wealth (far more than others), and so deserve to reap their earnings. But at the same time, not a single person did it completely on their own, whether they would like to recognize this fact, themselves.

Go figure. A government employee thinking someone's money is theirs. Parasite.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit alot of the "elite" are/were actually working class people who were smart with their money.

The original elite were, yes; the problem is when you get families just holding on to ridiculous amounts of wealth forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit So that tells you that more people should invest their money and pay less taxes. This isn't rocket science LOL.

Please, you know that most people can't afford to invest anywhere near enough for it to make a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit a dollar is still a dollar. At an equal percentage, he is still paying more dollars, now by increasing the percentage he will pay even more on a multiplicative level.

So?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews The original elite were, yes; the problem is when you get families just holding on to ridiculous amounts of wealth forever.

So what do you suggest to do with those families?

Obviously they are going to always be ahead of the "game" cause of their fortune.

What do you do with the corporations that are not original but are run into the ground? Like GM, JPM? Since they are cultural icons, should they be saved even if they are horribly wrong to keep supporting?

Why work when you are taxed more? Because you do it to benefit society (specifically your society) as a whole.

The internet has really put a dent in the ideal of national superiority and pride in moving ones people forward. I think that this is why we have seen a rise in fiscal conservatism that will be the undoing of a great number of nations that had it right for so long.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Please, you know that most people can't afford to invest anywhere near enough for it to make a difference.

Most people can't afford to invest cause they have to keep supporting people like Halcyon and welfare types.

Maybe this society should focus on how to reduce the cost of living? One of the major costs is government "support".

quote:

Originally posted by zGoogleman Most people can't afford to invest cause they have to keep supporting people like Halcyon and welfare types. Maybe this society should focus on how to reduce the cost of living? One of the major costs is government "support".

You're a fucking mong.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby You're a fucking mong.

What's a mong?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews The original elite were, yes; the problem is when you get families just holding on to ridiculous amounts of wealth forever.

so ? I think the bigger problem is people that borrow money, don't pay it back and then declare bankruptcy. This is far worse than "hoarding" money over generations. If that hoarded money isn't invested; inflation will take care of it very quickly. Not to mention day to day expenses and high cost assets that require maintenance (money that goes back into the system).

Watch a documentary on lottery winners and how they easily blow all their money in a span of less than 10 years.

quote:

Please, you know that most people can't afford to invest anywhere near enough for it to make a difference.

So by increasing taxation that's suppose to encourage investing? I'll use myself as an example again. last year i earned less than 50k salary before taxes, and managed to add an extra 16% extra (about 7.5K in gains) from investing before taxes. Now unfortunately that wasn't all in my tax free account, but had i been taxed my full marginal rate, i wouldn't bother investing.


There are also stock options that corporations give to their regular employees which they can match your contribution from your salary. when you sell those as well, you do not want to be paying full marginal rates.


Anyways, that's just my point of view; albeit biased as i do prefer to diversify where my income comes from.

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