|
Who should pay more tax?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
All this moaning from our rich American friends on this forum has made me decide to do a poll. The rich should obviously pay more because they can afford to. The poor cannot afford to pay the same levels of tax (assuming we want the budget to remain the same) so should not have to. However, all these (lucky/fortunate) rich people that have found their way onto TA Politics to moan cos they are rich, sorry, moan that they pay more taxes cannot fathom this. Pure greed and selfishness. All this talk about how bad other countries in the third world are and how their rulers treat them and they are no better!
So...
Tax the rich?
Tax the poor?
Tax the same but raise the level of basic tax? (ie. the poor pay a load more/cut back on spending)
Oh and no hiding behind your vote (for the rich Americans that are about to vote tax everyone the same) and you have to justify your vote when voting tax the same - what will be the effect on society now that poor people (well the majority of people) are even poorer? Or, if you keep the minimum basic tax rate, what do you cut back on? Again giving effects on society when the rich Americans tell us they will cut back on social services/medicare/etc (or will they suprise us by cutting back on defence?! Nah!) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
All this moaning from our rich American friends on this forum has made me decide to do a poll. The rich should obviously pay more because they can afford to. The poor cannot afford to pay the same levels of tax (assuming we want the budget to remain the same) so should not have to. However, all these (lucky/fortunate) rich people that have found their way onto TA Politics to moan cos they are rich, sorry, moan that they pay more taxes cannot fathom this. Pure greed and selfishness. All this talk about how bad other countries in the third world are and how their rulers treat them and they are no better!
So...
Tax the rich?
Tax the poor?
Tax the same but raise the level of basic tax? (ie. the poor pay a load more/cut back on spending)
Oh and no hiding behind your vote (for the rich Americans that are about to vote tax everyone the same) and you have to justify your vote when voting tax the same - what will be the effect on society now that poor people (well the majority of people) are even poorer? Or, if you keep the minimum basic tax rate, what do you cut back on? Again giving effects on society when the rich Americans tell us they will cut back on social services/medicare/etc (or will they suprise us by cutting back on defence?! Nah!) |
Hey Georgie--I guess you don't have any aspirations to ever be successful in life, eh? So the rich should pay more so that the poor can continue to sponge off of them. And when there's not enough to go around...ah, 'em! Tax 'em more! After all, they are greedy, evil people that don't deserve to keep the fruits of their labor, rather it should be given away to the lowest common denominator. I apologize in advance, but 3 words are specifically coming to mind right now. GO YOURSELF.
In fact, I voted to tax the poor for the sheer sake of spiting you. Personally, I'm for cutting entitlement spending and all government spending for that matter. We live in an overtaxed society where as long as there exists any sort of wage gap, people on the low end will be crying for more taxes(err, redistribution of income) from the rich to pay for their own jealousy. Last I checked, both greed and jealousy were among the 7 deadly sins. What say you? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
In fact, I voted to tax the poor for the sheer sake of spiting you. |
:D
That quote is brilliant! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Hey Georgie--I guess you don't have any aspirations to ever be successful in life, eh? |
Why do you think that?! Cause I plan to be successful (altho when there are something like 400 people for every graduate job it doesn't look to good does it - and that is clue 1)
| quote: | | So the rich should pay more so that the poor can continue to sponge off of them. |
You are assuming everyone can become rich (or even on a good wage ie graduate level) which simply is impossible in a capitalist society. So you will always have the same level of poor (altho it needent be that way) as this system requires it in order to operate (dont get me wrong its a very stable system). There simply are not enough "good" jobs for everyone (plus someone needs to do the dishes right?)
| quote: | | And when there's not enough to go around...ah, 'em! Tax 'em more! After all, they are greedy, evil people that don't deserve to keep the fruits of their labor, rather it should be given away to the lowest common denominator. I apologize in advance, but 3 words are specifically coming to mind right now. GO YOURSELF. |
You've summed it up pretty much there. With a few exceptions (like doctors) all jobs are just as hard. You think its harder to be a manager or the managed?
| quote: | | Personally, I'm for cutting entitlement spending and all government spending for that matter. We live in an overtaxed society where as long as there exists any sort of wage gap, people on the low end will be crying for more taxes(err, redistribution of income) from the rich to pay for their own jealousy. Last I checked, both greed and jealousy were among the 7 deadly sins. What say you? |
Whats entitlement tax? Anyway, you draw attention to a "wage gap" and whilest ever this exists the poor will "be crying out for more taxes" so whats you solution to the wage gap? High minimum wage? Do you know how curious your "tipping" society is? fair enuf in restaurants you leave a tip. But in America (so I have heard) its crazy! But they need tips cos their wages are so crap. Do you support a high minumum wage? Or is that too unfair on the rich too? Do you not think defence could be cut back? fair enuf you have a military that can strike anywhere anytime, but that is not for defence...that is for offence (for the greedy rich funnily enuf) so is it really neccessary? Do you need to spend billions on the armed forces when that is no protection against terrorists? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Last I checked, both greed and jealousy were among the 7 deadly sins. What say you? |
I say that you need to work out the difference between jealousy and neccessity... |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You've summed it up pretty much there. With a few exceptions (like doctors) all jobs are just as hard. You think its harder to be a manager or the managed? |
That's a subjective question, but managers generally carry a lot more responsibility. With more responsibility generally comes more compensation. Also, a manager will have typically worked his way up the ranks into his position. He has to know how all of the cogs work and how to best manage them. He has been managed before.
| quote: | | ...so whats you solution to the wage gap? |
There is no "solution". There will always be wage differences. We cannot have a utopian society. This is more a question of "equality of opportunity" vs. "equality of outcome".
Sounds good on paper, but in practice, this will generally lead to higher unemployment. Given X amount of dollars in a budget to run an operation, a manager cannot spend what money he does not have, so he must learn to operate with a lower headcount. So someone will get paid more at the expense of the marginal worker not getting hired.
| quote: | | Do you know how curious your "tipping" society is? fair enuf in restaurants you leave a tip. But in America (so I have heard) its crazy! But they need tips cos their wages are so crap. |
Curious indeed. Their wages are "crap" because their tips are so significant. A valet attendant working in the right parking lot can clear several hundred dollars per NIGHT. Very curious. Of course, that drastically lower wage level also relieves that "tip dependent" employee from a significant amount of income tax (unless, that is, they report all of their tip income to the government, which almost NEVER happens). Maybe we should up the taxes on them? But I digress.
Bottom line: It is not as black/white as you would like to believe. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I say that you need to work out the difference between jealousy and neccessity... |
If it wasn't about jealousy, then why are we always hearing about how evil the rich are and why it should be they that should be taxed more? I bet if they weren't "evil", they wouldn't make such a convenient target. Isn't it a battle between the haves and the have nots? He has more than me, tax him more! That's jealousy, my friend. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
If it wasn't about jealousy, then why are we always hearing about how evil the rich are and why it should be they that should be taxed more? I bet if they weren't "evil", they wouldn't make such a convenient target. Isn't it a battle between the haves and the have nots? He has more than me, tax him more! That's jealousy, my friend. |
I suggest you take the "evil" argument up with someone who has said that. In the USA you have something like 12% poverty. In the UK its 16%. I dont know about you but that makes me feel sick and ashamed that in two of the richest nations on Earth we have any amount of poverty let alone that high. No, it is not jealousy, it is neccessity |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That's a subjective question, but managers generally carry a lot more responsibility. With more responsibility generally comes more compensation. Also, a manager will have typically worked his way up the ranks into his position. He has to know how all of the cogs work and how to best manage them. He has been managed before. |
Well the managers that work their way up from the 'bottom' (ie the lowest possible tear in a company) tend not to go very high (and their wage would still not be considered all that good). Those that are able to reach the top will not have worked their way up the ranks. They will have started half way up already and already command a good wage. I'm not sayinf there are not exceptions to this case but that is how it works for the main. Also, your looking at responsibility, but what about worth? Who makes the most money for the company? Those at the top or those at the bottom on the production line? Its the people at the bottom doing the bread and butter jobs (management just for the sake of management is irrelevant, how many jobs have you had where you just turn up and do the same thing every day?)
| quote: | | There is no "solution". There will always be wage differences. We cannot have a utopian society. This is more a question of "equality of opportunity" vs. "equality of outcome". |
Yes in a free market economy (a liberal democracy) there will always be wage gaps and inequality of oppertunity, but it doesn't have to be as bad as it is. The wage gap need not be as great and there is no reason why a reformed capitalist society cannot provide equality of oppertunity (surely you can see it generates enuf wealth for this?)
| quote: | | Sounds good on paper, but in practice, this will generally lead to higher unemployment. Given X amount of dollars in a budget to run an operation, a manager cannot spend what money he does not have, so he must learn to operate with a lower headcount. So someone will get paid more at the expense of the marginal worker not getting hired. |
Thats what the Conservatives in the UK said when Labour came to power in 1997 (a minimum wage was part of Labour's manifesto as there had not been one previously). And when Labour introduced the minumum wage? Nothing. No extra unemployment squat. So although it could be excused for assuming higher wages will equal more unemployment, the reality, as far as the UK is concerned, is that it will have no effect on unemployment. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| I'm voting the rich in the poll, but on the basis of a situation like in the U.S. right now. I'm all for everyone, including the rich having their taxes lowered, but right now it cannot be done. Entitlement are not the reason that taxes are high. If other spending is not greatly cut, imposing something like a flat tax would greatly increase the burden onto the lower & middle classes. I know the poor can't really afford to make up the difference and I don't know how much more us middle class people can afford, so it's gotta be collected from somewhere. I outlined several ways that would help lower taxes long term for everyone in the Dems' agenda thread, but until some major cuts are made to things like defense and foreign debt are paid off, it's completely unrealistic to talk about significantly removing progressive taxation, unless you want to raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans who already have to live on stricter budgets. |
|
|
| Rhand |
Voted for equally taxes for all...
Why should the riches be punished for bein rich? Since when is being rich a crime??
Manager-employer question.
Employer makes fault => other employer who can take care of the fault.
Manager makes fault => Company may go completely go to hell... |
|
|
| occrider |
| Tax the poor more. That way we can slowly starve them all to death. Eventually there will be no more poor people and we can all live happily in an idealic society! Of course poverty is a relative measure so we’ll have to raise taxes on the neo-poor until they’re eliminated as well to ensure the propogation of happiness. Eventually my utopian society will simply consist of one really, really rich guy who lives in a dizzying state of bliss. |
|
|
|
|
