|
should high-income earners get taxed more than everyone else? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| 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.
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, |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
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. |
|
|
| Vector A |
"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. |
|
|
| itsfesta |
ZEITGEIST FTW!!!!  |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| tax capital gains and get rid of loop holes so those that have more are taxed more. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
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. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
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 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. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| 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 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 ing 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 " 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 interest rates right the 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. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| 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 ing 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 " 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 interest rates right the 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. |
|
|
|
|
