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.
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 .
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.
Lews
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.
pkcRAISTLIN
Yes, they should pay more. I don’t see the contentious part of this statement.
Lews
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.
pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah, you yanks certainly are a strange lot :p
Nrg2Nfinit
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.
Halcyon+On+On
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.
Floorfiller
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?
Lews
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.
Jon_Snow
I believe in high income.
pkcRAISTLIN
how much does child rape pay?
Floorfiller
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....
