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.
I was looking at another thread. Someone suggested that the very wealthy should be taxed more. Lots of people agreed, but a lot of people were against the idea.
Why would you possibly be against this idea? I doubt many people on this forum fall into the category of being very wealthy, so why should you be against the idea?
And if you ARE very wealthy, then you should pay up a little bit more money. Do not be greedy, if you care about America it seems as though you would not mind paying a little bit more of your riches to help the USA prosper.
The rich are ones who can afford it. Low income workers in America are simply unable to take on any more expenses. They are already stretched to the limits financially, and they are already paying quite a lot of taxes. Taxes must come from SOMEWHERE, the rich have gotten lots of new tax breaks over the past few decades. We must start taxing them more once again. Bring it back to where it was at around the 70s and 60s.
So.... why shouldn't the rich be taxed more?
You mention "afford".. what exactly does that mean? And by whose standards is an "affordable" living set by?
Many people (myself included) are against the increase and unfair taxing of the "rich" because there is NO deffinition to "rich".. if they tax a person making 1 million dollars because well gee... they can afford it because I can't... shouldn't they also tax the person making 100,000 because they can afford it in the eyes of someone making 50,000... and then how about taxing the person making 50,000 because they can afford it compared to the homeless...
many VERY weatlhy people have several charity organizations and scholarship programs already that benefit those that ARE less fortunate.
So.. you ask... "Why shouldn't the rich betaxed more?" - whos going to define "rich" and by what standards... I'm not rich but I'm a helluva lot richer then the man down at the homless shelter... im a lot richer then the single mom raising 2 kids going to school full time. Im a lot richer than the family that just lost their jobs due to the economy and are about to loose their house. But i'm not as rich as the person who owns a brand new BMW or the person that is able to make payments on a multi million dollar house.
That is why a lot of people are against taxing MORE on the rich... PLUS... if they work hard - which many of them do - putting in 80 + hours a week and giving up family time to make sure companies are in business, deals are made, etc...
This is why the income tax needs to be done away with and replaced with a consumption tax, like a VAT or the FairTax. You consume more, you pay more. Seems the fairest way to do things.
Interesting side note: were you all aware that the way income tax is collected currently violates the Constitution? Doesn't have any net effect, but interesting nonetheless.
This is why the income tax needs to be done away with and replaced with a consumption tax, like a VAT or the FairTax. You consume more, you pay more. Seems the fairest way to do things.
Interesting side note: were you all aware that the way income tax is collected currently violates the Constitution? Doesn't have any net effect, but interesting nonetheless.
Many people don't accept the premise that you're greedy if you think giving up half your income is plenty enough even if you're rich;
The U.S. has a high rate of class mobility, meaning theoretically any of us have a shot at getting rich and we don't want the government waiting to put their foot in our ass if we get there;
We don't want to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs -- i.e., people fundamentally understand what happens when you destroy the incentive to produce.
First, I'd like to see a class mobility statistic, last time I check we were quite low compared to other countries. Lower class people have less opportunity due to their lack of resources. This has been made worse by the cutting of college funding by states.
Second, if we're only going to do things because we get paid to do them, we are putting our country in a sorry state, and maybe we are doing a lot of things that don't need to be done.
Third, I accept that half of one's income is not enogh for many people and some are greedy. What does your company do? How any of your workers are low wage and can't afford to feed or provide health care for kids...... etc.
Our debt has skyrocketed since Reagan started this culture of trickle down economics. Imagine if we returned to those tax levels and cut some spending. I'm betting we wouldn't have to worry about China owning us in a few years.
Well, you can be charged with a crime based on your filing a tax return sounds like self-incrimination to me.
Income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
Social security numbers were not supposed to be used as identification numbers. Try to send in your tax return without one.
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.
