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.
When politicians say that the rich should pay more in taxes I ask pay more for what reason?
When you look at the democrats who are running for president. They all want medicare-for-all and some form of free college. These things would require more taxation. But many Americans disagree with these things and the higher taxes that will come with them. So should the rich be paying more in taxes just to provide more funding for things many Americans disagree with? Aren't the rich paying enough taxes to cover our current government services and programs?
Bc our economy runs and grows based on the circulation of money. The higher your rate of taking money out of circulation, the higher you should be taxed.
A poor person making $20k is going to spend almost 100% of that money in the economy, mostly their local economy. That grows the economy.
A well off person making $200k is going to spend 60-70% of that money in the economy, the rest is taken out on the form of savings, retirement funding, putting money aside for college etc
A rich person making $500k is spending an even smaller percentage of their money in the economy, taking a bigger % out.
The end result is that, in general, the more money an individual makes the more harm they do to the economy bc they are more likely to take money out of circulation.
The only way we have to offset that damages is to tax the money they do earn at a higher rate OR to incentivize them to invest that money into the economy with negative tax rates.
The rich should get another big tax cut and the half of working Americans who pay no income tax should get their tax credits removed so they start paying some tax.
I see you're still attempting to resurrect Ayn Rand's punctured ideologies. How unusual.
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Actually, as you quite clearly pointed out to us all, it was Adam Smith who advocated for the flat tax rate... "in proportion to." That's a flat tax rate. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Is that where you redefined ( & how libertarian of you! ) the common meaning of 'ability' to mean the same thing as 'income'?
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Is that where you redefined ( & how libertarian of you! ) the common meaning of 'ability' to mean the same thing as 'income'?
Those with the "ability" to earn more actually DO pay more with a flat tax rate that is "in proportion."
To recap, your Adam Smith quote:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.”
― Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
I then explained the meaning of proportion (which is basic algebra, 9th grade math) to you, using an example and citing a source:
Quote:
Example: Rope
A rope's length and weight are in proportion when 20m of rope weighs 1kg, then:
40m of that rope weighs 2kg
200m of that rope weighs 10kg
etc.
80% of rich people are first generation and self made.
70% of rich people will lose their wealth by the third generation.
90% of rich people will lose their wealth by the fourth generation.
There’s little generational wealth but there are plenty of generational poverty mostly from people making poor choices.
Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95 percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE. Twenty one percent inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger, what UFE calls being “born on home plate.” Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a “large and prosperous company,” 12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from a relative, and 22 percent were “born on first base,” into an upper class family or got a modest inheritance or startup capital (UFE says it was conservative in assigning people to bases, so its report understates their advantages somewhat). So, at least 62 percent did not, in fact, make their fortunes “entirely from scratch.”
Since when does every millionaire bribe and manipulate? You're upset because they work harder and smarter than you and get rewarded for it? Yea don't want to reward people for hard work nowadays right? Free market be damned.
Not really.
Is a CEO 271 times smarter than a line worker?
Do they work 271 times harder?
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.
) the common meaning of 'ability' to mean the same thing as 'income'?
