|
should high-income earners get taxed more than everyone else? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| OrangestO |
Increased tobacco tax = more money for preschools.
So all you smokers out there can brag about how you help support children's education! |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vivid Boy
100 percent agree. their spending is what fuels the ecnomony, not our 100 dollar purchase of an ipod. These are the guys that spend the money on physical capital and financial capital that are used to produce the goods and services that drive our economy. They should definitely get tax breaks aka incentives to do more of it. |
You're an idiot. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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 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 bull. 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. |
|
|
| 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. your devry degree, your Icdc degree, 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 actually happens in the world because you have read a few articles off of wikipedia.
it at this point I would rather listen to BTG's views on taxation at least he contributes to the system. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
vote for nou! maximum wage! brilliant idea!
in moron :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| 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 |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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. your devry degree, your Icdc degree, 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 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 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 ing nut jobs or have some sort of authoritarian agenda (read libertarians).
So yea, you are an idiot who is spouting from people who literally are insane. They ignore history, they ignore present day examples, and they spout 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. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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? |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by clay
whats the point working hard if your taxed more? ing communist thinking. all the talents left norway sitting left with people who dont care about anything. |
quoted for truth |
|
|
| Chimney |
| ...reason why I'll never work in Sweden (home-land) once university is done. |
|
|
|
|
