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.
If the liberal is truly about being fair, then everybody should be paying the same AMOUNT income tax.
And if a liberal wanted to actually help others, they would go about doing it themselves instead of insisting the government do it using the resources of others.
Liberal, "I feel bad for that homeless person. I think I'll do something about it by insisting the government take money from that rich guy to help the homeless guy. I feel so good about doing that."
Second, Tax hikes on the rich are unjustified from a moral and a pragmatic perspective. It is unjust for the government to forcibly take money from one person to give to someone else in the name of “fairness.”
It's $250,000 for married filing jointly. That's when the income tax goes up even more steeply. Obama was forced into agreeing to increase it to that amount from an even lower one that he wanted.
Maybe in Mississippi that's considered rich. Heck, here with the cost of living in the NYC area, $250K is lower middle class!
Higher taxes on the rich is not the only answer, but it is one of the answers. To not consider it part of the solution is counterproductive. Income and wealth inequality needs to be addressed.
Wrong.. You are making the typical left wing mistake of confusing wealth with income. I didnt even address your charts despite the fact that many of them dispute your own notion.
The facts remain
If you raise income taxes on the high earners, then the high earners will receive more wealth as a method of income, which we do not tax.. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive they have to avoid taxes by taking their pay as wealth.
I've showed Buffet as an example. He earns $100K a year as CEO of BRK.. But worth tens of billions.
You could tax him at 100% but it wont dent his wealth.
Think about that for a second.. What you are proposing actually encourages an increase in wealth inequality.
Even the Obama debt commission said the answer wasnt to raise taxes, but spread the tax obligations onto those who currently arent paying. Thats why you havent heard a peep from it, the left would go batcrazy at the notion that we should tax people who are recipiants..
And if a liberal wanted to actually help others, they would go about doing it themselves instead of insisting the government do it using the resources of others.
Liberal, "I feel bad for that homeless person. I think I'll do something about it by insisting the government take money from that rich guy to help the homeless guy. I feel so good about doing that."
A liberal will always put your money where his/her mouth is, and somehow they think they are morally superior.
A corporation government structure includes the CEO, and shareholders, who all greatly benefit from increases in stock prices.
and yes.
They also could LOSE IT ALL if stocks take a dive. There were TONS of wealthy people who lost their shirts during the recession. Most wealthy people are only wealthy on paper, you do realize this right?
Wrong.. You are making the typical left wing mistake of confusing wealth with income. I didnt even address your charts despite the fact that many of them dispute your own notion.
The facts remain
If you raise income taxes on the high earners, then the high earners will receive more wealth as a method of income, which we do not tax.. The higher the tax rate, the more incentive they have to avoid taxes by taking their pay as wealth.
I've showed Buffet as an example. He earns $100K a year as CEO of BRK.. But worth tens of billions.
You could tax him at 100% but it wont dent his wealth.
Think about that for a second.. What you are proposing actually encourages an increase in wealth inequality.
Even the Obama debt commission said the answer wasnt to raise taxes, but spread the tax obligations onto those who currently arent paying. Thats why you havent heard a peep from it, the left would go batcrazy at the notion that we should tax people who are recipiants..
When did I confuse wealth with income? I provided a chart with two types of taxes and provided two different charts pertaining to what type of inequality they effect.
Please tell me, which charts am I contradicting myself in?
So you first claim you pay the same rate, then you add a disclaimer which says you actually dont due to kids, mortgage deductions etc..
You switched from effective tax rate in your first paragraph, to now marginal tax rate, and under NO scenario is it the same rate as someone who earns $100K, with or without deductions.
Earn $20K, 15% tax rate (social security is a welfare program so you dont count that), so you actually pay $3,000, - Deductions you usually pay ZERO..
Earn $100K, 15 tax rate on the first 20K, and whatever on the other 80K, so even with deductions if they pay more than $1 in taxes, they paid a higher rate than most who earn $20K do.. PERIOD..
Yawn. Why don't I count social security? No really, Isn't the complaint from people like you that welfare programs are out of control? But now..."oh we don't count that"
And you apparently purposely missed my entire point. People making 20K are paying taxes. But apparently you want to go back to ONLY covering federal taxes....can't imagine why huh? When I point out that someone making 20K pays taxes based upon the very apparent marginal rate, you want to argue that I should have given effective. Well I am so sorry I didn't hunt down the effective rate for a single person making 20K.....I didn't think I would have too because I figured you could do the math yourself. Whats the std deduction...that is available to everyone? There you go.
The bottom line is that everyone pays the same rate on their first x of income. some things can change that, but the rich get those same deductions with the one exception of the EITC, which phases out at the same rate for everyone.
Progressive taxation is the cornerstone of a developed society. Without high income taxes on "the rich," they are able to hoard more. Prosperity does not trickle down in the real world.
Disclaimer: Progressive taxation is not just about revenue, it is about incentive. Higher taxes on the rich discourage excess hoarding and outlandish salaries.
Progressive is an evil word. At that point you have communism or worst as there is no longer any means to conduct their businesses. You have effectively given it all to an all controlling and never changing one party government; what exists when such actions take place. Sound insane? Yeah, it is.
What is in bold is counterproductive to anything ever being done by anyone. You advocate for the collective rather than the individual. There is no incentive if what one receives in compensation for goods/services is taken away by a government agency. If one works hard one should enjoy the fruit of their effort/labor, not the collective.
You do realize if all holdings from all people were amassed in a global slush fund it would run out in a week, correct?
Who is going to invest in business? Who is going to work? No one; you confiscated all of the money and gave it to government.
Prosperity may not trickle down the way you envision but, getting off one's ass and working hard brings some prosperity about.
Hoarding is a senseless term. Investing is the term you want. Jealous is what you are.
Outlandish salaries are between an employer and employee. When I left blue collar employment for white collar I found I could bargain for my own salary. It was an individual endeavor rather than collective. Basically skilled opposed to unskilled.
Ergo...unskilled workers join unions so union representatives can bargain with an employer on their collective behalf. They all receive the same hourly pay when doing like work. Salaries differ with seniority and job description but all pay the same monthly union dues. What do union bosses do with those dues? The same as the federal government; they play and party with it.
Too bad people are unable to bargain for themselves. Then again, it requires some modicum of intelligence to do so. Handing it off to another to take care of it for you only goes so far.
I suggest some read some books by Orwell and Rand.
Its a common attack. If I point out my income would be affected, then they turn it around into "Well you aren't common" or some other nonsense. Basically anything to avoid the actual topic.
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.
