Killer Mike breaks it down

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I understand where you are coming from, but the little man is all relative. Where is the line drawn on who should pay for others? Is it a billionaire? Millionaire? Plenty of millionaires only make 50K a year but scrimped and saved. Should we take money from them?

There definitions to lower, Worker, middle, upper middle and upper class base on income and area. By states, The US and The UN. So it's pretty straight forwarded.

"Where is the line drawn on who should pay for others?" base on income and coast of living, A millionaire losing a few thousands over hundred thousand doesn't hurt them the way someone living medium wage they just lost a hundred dollar. The difference is survival. At the end of the day even with being taxed more the wealthy will still be well off and wealthy, but if your middle or lower class that make you short on rent or bills in general.

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I understand where you are coming from, but the little man is all relative. Where is the line drawn on who should pay for others? Is it a billionaire? Millionaire? Plenty of millionaires only make 50K a year but scrimped and saved. Should we take money from them?

People don't get taxed base on total net work but rather what they make or buy in the first place. If a Million only make 50K a year then he or she will taxed like they made 50K that year. If someone get taxed like they made half a million cause made half a million. There loop hole the wealthy use to dodge taxes that shouldn't be there but I speaking in general.

Also millionaire just saving create a problem. The argument of the individual hand itself of capitalism. or tickle down economics Is that the upper class will spend money, thus creating jobs etc.The idea is the gov doesn't have to get involve with the distribution of wealth, because the upclass are spending money themselves. but if the upper class is saving more then investing that money. Then that money is not trickling down in the economy. Otherwise never mind arguing against socialism, The up class not spending money goes against the flow of capitalism it's feudalism.

Unless someones a idiot and just blow there money, becoming a muti millionaire you have more then you and your family may need for a few generations. So no people don't have sympathy for people having to pay more taxes on money they never spend anyways to know a difference of what was lost.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

The argument of ... tickle down economics Is that the upper class will spend money, thus creating jobs etc.The idea is the gov doesn't have to get involve with the distribution of wealth, because the upclass are spending money themselves. but if the upper class is saving more then investing that money. Then that money is not trickling down in the economy.

Also, what if the the Big Boys are just spending money on intangibles like stocks and bonds or are investing their money overseas? That money can't trickle down to the lower classes.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I guess the only thing I can think of is that the wealthy often have good tax strategies in place so you don't often get a true picture of their income.

And every single one of us (including those who think the feds should outlay money to forgive student loans) would utilize those same tax strategies if we got a hold of that kind of money (unless you like to voluntary give money to Uncle Sam).

[BR Valentine]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I guess the only thing I can think of is that the wealthy often have good tax strategies in place so you don't often get a true picture of their income.

People who are actually wealthy accumulate their wealth through capital gains, which are taxed at a significantly lower rate, not income. Those who inherit wealth are vastly advantaged by the stepped up basis provision in the tax code. The tax code is written to advantage wealthy people much more so than income earners because wealthy people have the money required to buy the political influence to get their desired outcomes whereas even high income earners don’t have enough money to do that for the most part. This isn’t complicated to figure out.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I understand where you are coming from, but the little man is all relative. Where is the line drawn on who should pay for others? Is it a billionaire? Millionaire? Plenty of millionaires only make 50K a year but scrimped and saved. Should we take money from them?

You do know how taxes work, don't you?

Also, if anyone is a millionaire making just $50k a year, they've done more than scrimped and saved. Because it would take 20 years of $50k income with no expenses and no taxes to achieve a million dollars. There would have to be some heavy, heavy investment.