Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whenever someone suggests that we should tax the rich more, people state that the rich are already paying a huge amount of the taxes. Therefore, it's not fair to make them pay more taxes.
However, if you ask the same people why life's playing fields are not equal, they'll say that life is not fair and that the unfortunate should just deal with it.
Basically, they're using fairness as a reason for not increasing taxes on the rich, but simultaneously completely ignoring the lack of fairness in other parts of society.
Ahh no.. its not hypocritical to suggest that life isnt fair so if you dont have something you want, you need to live with it, and to suggest that others who do have things you want, and you need to live with it..
Both of them represent that if you want things, you need to get it, but neither one supports the idea that if you want things, you should take them from others..
Whenever someone suggests that we should tax the rich more, people state that the rich are already paying a huge amount of the taxes. Therefore, it's not fair to make them pay more taxes.
However, if you ask the same people why life's playing fields are not equal, they'll say that life is not fair and that the unfortunate should just deal with it.
Basically, they're using fairness as a reason for not increasing taxes on the rich, but simultaneously completely ignoring the lack of fairness in other parts of society.
Before you can use the fair card, you need to establish just exactly what constitutes fair. Some arbitrary percentage of income? What is fair?
And if you ask me why life's playing fields are not equal I would just suggest you make your own equality. If you choose to be less equal then don't expect me to pay higher taxes. Join the army and go to college at tax payer expense. When you get out, don't go home to the slums, go somewhere you can put your tax payer funded skills and education to use. Then you can you your good fortune to help your cousins out of their desperation.
Whenever someone suggests that we should tax the rich more, people state that the rich are already paying a huge amount of the taxes. Therefore, it's not fair to make them pay more taxes.
However, if you ask the same people why life's playing fields are not equal, they'll say that life is not fair and that the unfortunate should just deal with it.
Basically, they're using fairness as a reason for not increasing taxes on the rich, but simultaneously completely ignoring the lack of fairness in other parts of society.
It has nothing to do with fair or not fair, making one person pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than the next person simply because they're successful is wrong.
Before you can use the fair card, you need to establish just exactly what constitutes fair. Some arbitrary percentage of income? What is fair?
And if you ask me why life's playing fields are not equalI would just suggest you make your own equality. If you choose to be less equal then don't expect me to pay higher taxes. Join the army and go to college at tax payer expense. When you get out, don't go home to the slums, go somewhere you can put your tax payer funded skills and education to use. Then you can you your good fortune to help your cousins out of their desperation.
So why shouldn't the poor take more money from the rich? They have the voting power to do that and with that they "can make their own equality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace
It has nothing to do with fair or not fair, making one person pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than the next person simply because they're successful is wrong.
It's wrong because...it's not fair or because some political commentator said it's wrong?
The only fair way to tax is a flat percentage tax.
You earn x amount, you pay y percent on that, you pay z in taxes.
No deductions, no loopholes, no nothing, just z amount.
The richest Americans don't want that because they'll have to pay more money, the poorest Americans don't like it because they'd be taxed at all.
But, thats the fairest way of doing it.
I also feel that we should have a 90% inheritance tax for any money that isn't invested in a job creating venture of some kind.
There will never ever be a flat tax.
Why?
Run some numbers using a salary of $15,000 vs $150,000 per year.
Using a sample of the 10% flat tax vs current tax rates.
$150,000 salary $15,000 in taxes vs $58,500 in taxes.
$15,000 salary $1500 in taxes vs $0 in taxes.
It's easy to see what the government has opted for, the progressive income tax. Why? Because they can easily spend outrageously on that $58,500 whereas if they only had the $16,500 they'd be forced (hopefully) into spending within their means.
Run some numbers using a salary of $15,000 vs $150,000 per year.
Using a sample of the 10% flat tax vs current tax rates.
$150,000 salary $15,000 in taxes vs $58,500 in taxes.
$15,000 salary $1500 in taxes vs $0 in taxes.
It's easy to see what the government has opted for, the progressive income tax. Why? Because they can easily spend outrageously on that $58,500 whereas if they only had the $16,500 they'd be forced (hopefully) into spending within their means.
Which would YOU choose?
90% inheritance tax? I mean GEEZ..........
Everyone benefits equally from a stable government, everyone should pay the same.
Most realistic flat tax plans wouldn't tax any income below a 30,000 dollar level though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.