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 »

should high-income earners get taxed more than everyone else?

Some say taxes should be equal across the board in order to avoid class warfare.

Others say that the wealthier should be taxed more because of the inequality in wealth distribution.

I read this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...eport_Final.pdf

...and the issue has been bouncing around in my head ever since.

What's the fix?

Has class warfare ever not existed? Sure they were called the aristocrats and the monarchy, now we just have millionaires and billionaires.

My favorite comment from the rich is that we can all be successful like them. Oh really? Everyone can be CEO's and the like? Who will do the jobs that no one wants to do then.

The rich just need to pay their fair share, I won't say they need to pay more but they def. don't need to be paying way less than the folks struggling. I get it rich people you really wanted to build that new house in space and these darn taxes are getting in your way. I feel you, not.

Do away with the loopholes and incentives and tax everyone a flat rate.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO Do away with the loopholes and incentives and tax everyone a flat rate.

When you say flat rate do you mean percentage or certain dollar amount?

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.

i personally believe in a flat tax system...

quote:

Originally posted by Pantone199c When you say flat rate do you mean percentage or certain dollar amount?

Percentage, of course.

bring back slavery. problem solved.

no.
Who the hell wants to live in a society that is all middle class no matter what you do. There would be no marginal benefit for over achievers and for those who put their balls on the line. Thus it would lead to less innovation, shittier products, more 9-5ers and less companies hiring

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy Who the hell wants to live in a society that is all middle class no matter what you do.

Thwhat?

it was a way over exaggeration :P

I just mean it would make coming out of the next tax bracket a lot harder and less people would give a shit about making 80 grand compared to 60 if at the end of the day youre taking home relatively the same amount. Why take on the extra repsonisbility

I barely slept last night. Im going back to sleep

quote:

Originally posted by Vivid Boy I just mean it would make coming out of the next tax bracket a lot harder and less people would give a shit about making 80 grand compared to 60 if at the end of the day youre taking home relatively the same amount. Why take on the extra repsonisbility

Makes sense, but I think it's an exceedingly specific scenario that one might find themselves working exactly 20% harder to rake in exactly 20% additional income. It's simply not how an overwhelming number of jobs work; not even commissioned-based ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Makes sense, but I think it's an exceedingly specific scenario that one might find themselves working exactly 20% harder to rake in exactly 20% additional income. It's simply not how an overwhelming number of jobs work; not even commissioned-based ones.

You've never lived in Canada. I finally love my tax bracket.

shit does flow down, i'll give you that. The problem is if you earn being somewhere, you should not be made to pay for those that did not,

I don't really know what the answer to taxes is...

Taxing the wealthy just because they are successful doesn't seem fair.

The wealthy being able to take advantage of loopholes in the system doesn't seem fair.

I guess that's why i'm in favor of a flat tax based off of a percentage. I like the point you made Vivid, I think that's a interesting idea. What other option is there though? Basically keep the system we currently have.

"Flat tax" is just equivalent to saying that you want the government to be reduced to bare bones policing and judicial functions, since there is no way it would produce comparable revenue to progressive taxation.

Which is fine, I suppose, if that's really what you want.

ZEITGEIST FTW!!!!

tax capital gains and get rid of loop holes so those that have more are taxed more.

they already do.

my personal opinion is that everyone should be taxed the same percentage, and there should be no taxation on investing.

the higher income earners already pay more tax because they make more.


In reality what you have is double gouging in marginal tax rates

you're taxed at a higher percentage and since you make more you are taxed more.

If you tax investing income very high you create hoarding and higher interest rates.

lower investing taxation to nothing or minimal and you have cheap money (lower interest rates) and in turn a stronger economy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Makes sense, but I think it's an exceedingly specific scenario that one might find themselves working exactly 20% harder to rake in exactly 20% additional income. It's simply not how an overwhelming number of jobs work; not even commissioned-based ones.

It's not so much about workign harder, its about taking on the responsibility


If we did not have marginal rates, the government woudl still be taking more money from the person that makes 80 k over 60k

lets just say the first 20k, is not taxable, then anything over that is taxed at 35%


I would be happy with that.


no investing taxation
and also the ability to deffer taxation by contributing to rrsp
interest expense writeoffs


that would be a great system.

Those of you saying flat tax systems are a good idea don't have a clue.

If it's flat (either a fee/denomination or percentage), why the fuck should someone that earns $30k pay the same fee as someone that earns $300k a year? Utter nonsense.

Lower taxes on lower income people mean less burden and more opportunity for them to grow financially. Higher taxes on higher income earners have far less impact due to their net income being high enough that and extra 10% or 20% in taxes doesn't matter.

Capital gains could and maybe should be a flat fixed rate beyond a certain dollar amount and that would be a massive step in correcting budgetary problems in the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Those of you saying flat tax systems are a good idea don't have a clue. [quote] If it's flat (either a fee/denomination or percentage), why the fuck should someone that earns $30k pay the same fee as someone that earns $300k a year? Utter nonsense.

don't mix your words here. PERCENTAGE. Let's say 30%

$9,000 for 30k
$90,000 for 300k

even thats a fucking gouge if i ever saw one. you want to tack another 10 to 20 % on top of that on the higher earner? what are you smoking? where is the incentive to earn?

so it's not a "why the fuck" scenario. it's a percentage. I agree with you, flat fee is ridiculous. percentage that is constant, not so much.

I do take back what i said though. I don't mind a marginal rates, i think the minimum non taxable amoutn should actually be increased (we have 10k in canada, it should be like 20k. Then proceed with marginal rates up to 35%. no more.

quote:

Lower taxes on lower income people mean less burden and more opportunity for them to grow financially. Higher taxes on higher income earners have far less impact due to their net income being high enough that and extra 10% or 20% in taxes doesn't matter.

that already happens when you use a constant percentage. is it really necessary to gouge on top of that another 10 to 20%?

quote:

Capital gains could and maybe should be a flat fixed rate beyond a certain dollar amount and that would be a massive step in correcting budgetary problems in the USA.

sure, and that would fuck interest rates right the fuck up. you do realize if you impose higher taxes, the banks will raise their interest rates (as they will be taxed more on the interest earned), there will be less liquidity, less opportunity and, in turn, less jobs.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit don't mix your words here. PERCENTAGE. Let's say 30% $9,000 for 30k $90,000 for 300k even thats a fucking gouge if i ever saw one. you want to tack another 10 to 20 % on top of that on the higher earner? what are you smoking? where is the incentive to earn? so it's not a "why the fuck" scenario. it's a percentage. I agree with you, flat fee is ridiculous. percentage that is constant, not so much. I do take back what i said though. I don't mind a marginal rates, i think the minimum non taxable amoutn should actually be increased (we have 10k in canada, it should be like 20k. Then proceed with marginal rates up to 35%. no more. Church donations should not be a tax credit. Sure not a big piece of the pie but why not. that already happens when you use a constant percentage. is it really necessary to gouge on top of that another 10 to 20%? sure, and that would fuck interest rates right the fuck up. you do realize if you impose higher taxes, the banks will raise their interest rates (as they will be taxed more on the interest earned), there will be less liquidity, less opportunity and, in turn, less jobs.

don't you find that after a certain amount, % on income tax is pointless. Anyone with enough money can make their finances out so that they never really make much income. Everything gets diverted to things that aren't taxed like they should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit don't mix your words here. PERCENTAGE. Let's say 30% $9,000 for 30k $90,000 for 300k even thats a fucking gouge if i ever saw one. you want to tack another 10 to 20 % on top of that on the higher earner? what are you smoking? where is the incentive to earn? so it's not a "why the fuck" scenario. it's a percentage. I agree with you, flat fee is ridiculous. percentage that is constant, not so much.

Sorry but totally disagree and both history and economics are on my side. I purposely didn't differentiate between a % and flat fee.

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.

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.

"Paying more taxes" as you state is a classic republican defense soundbyte that had proven time and time again to be misleading and purposely obfuscate the point.

I'm actually in that upper tax bracket that would be affected. I pay less taxes than my employees who earn far less.

I don't agree with really high tax rates as that's not conducive to a health business environment but anyone earning $500k+ a year who say they can;t afford to pay say 40% or 50% is taxes is full of shit.

Switzerland top marginal tax rate is just above 50% and you don't see the Swiss flocking to other countries to get away from taxation do you? No, and therein lies the reason it has the highest quality of life in the world, not to mention was names best place to be born in 2013 by Forbes. Those taxes pay for amazing infrastructure and quality of public services, which in turn help businesses be competitive in global marketplace.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit I do take back what i said though. I don't mind a marginal rates, i think the minimum non taxable amoutn should actually be increased (we have 10k in canada, it should be like 20k. Then proceed with marginal rates up to 35%. no more.

Nonesense. historical tax rates has shown again and again, that countries do much better with a sliding scale on marginal rates. 50% is a safe anchor point for top tier rates. Beyond that you get imcome migration and below that you're not effectively making use of tax revenues. 35% should only be a middle-upper income marginal rate.

Can we please get away from the Reaganite myth of trickle down economics - low tax rates do not equal better business or a stronger economy for all. Exactly the opposite.

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