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.
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..
So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?
If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?
discuss and enlighten.
I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..
So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?
If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?
discuss and enlighten.
I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
Depends on what the money is being used for, and the rate in which everyone else is being taxed.
Are the rich greedy because they want to keep the money that they earned, or are others greedy because they want money from those who pay taxes?
Might want to clarify the math a little. If those are effective rates, then the income between 650K and a million is being taxed at a marginal rate of almost 70%. That's getting into a range that does start discouraging some people, particularly those whose income utility curves peak early...
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..
So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?
If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?
discuss and enlighten.
I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
What a grossly simplistic post.
The reason people are averse to taxes is because whenever you place an excessive burden on achievement to subsidize failure, it stifles the achievement to begin with. It's also a matter of fairness.
What moral obligation do higher achieving people bear to lower achieving people, given that most of their achievement comes from personal sacrifice? Yes, there will always be the idiot-sons inheriting the old widows cash, but most people who succeed financially do so through their own hard work and brainpower.
Contrary to the leftist myth that achievement can only be had if you're some sort of an "insider" or that it's impossible to achieve to a high degree without hurting (baby seals, blacks, Tibet, the whales- whatever), the people who do well do so because of the good decisions they make.
Why should the fruits of their good decision-making be taxed to subsidize things that are often times the direct result of poor decision-making? And just because people who are very successful are taxed in a higher bracket, that doesn't mean that they should simply accept that. Sometimes, the consequence isn't a fair result of the action in question, so you cannot simply dismiss it since the people who took that action had foreknowledge of it.
No, I believe that everyone should pay the same. Set the benchmark and whatever you make, you pay a percentage of that. Whether you make $1,000,000,000 a year or $100,000 a year, we all contribute alike. That way, there is nothing in place that punishes success, like higher tax brackets.
I wouldn't have any problem with eliminating ALL taxes for people in the lowest income brackets- say, under $30,000 a year.
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..
So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?
Let me ask you this: If I had the other 500K in my pocket, what am I going to do with it? Let me answer for you - I'm going to spend it. I'm going to spend it on things needing to be built - to be manufactured. By doing so, I'm helping to create jobs.
I'm going to spend it on my childs education - thereby giving society a well educated person.
I'm going to spend it on taking care of my elderly parents - so they will not be a financial burden on society.
I don't think I would spend all of it. There is also the difference that at the lower end you'll be spending for necessities while at the higher level it's much more of a choice and wants.
I think a progressive tax schedule as long as it's not too steep is good.
There are so many threads out there right now ... proponents of the fair tax, why does everyone hate the rich, etc..
So I guess I'll take the other tack. If you were to earn a substantial amount of money - say $1,000,000 - and you knew it would be taxed at a straight 50%, so now you're only taking home $500K - no tax shelters for you - why would that be bad?
If you were earning only $650K, taxed at 40%, you mean you really wouldn't want the raise to $1million? It wouldn't be worth it because you're paying more in taxes?
discuss and enlighten.
I would still personally take the raise, I don't see taxes as a disincentive to work in this case. The government is making more money, but ... so am I.
THYE ARE???????? Something like the top 10% wealthiest people pay over 50% of the taxes and the poor don't pay anything. I whish I owned Walmart or some other big Corp. I tell you all to shove it and close every store............Screw the Rich and see what happens
I whish I owned Walmart or some other big Corp. I tell you all to shove it and close every store
Someone else would just step in and open their own stores to occupy the market share vacated by your stores.
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.
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.
Something like the top 10% wealthiest people pay over 50% of the taxes and the poor don't pay anything. I whish I owned Walmart or some other big Corp. I tell you all to shove it and close every store............Screw the Rich and see what happens