Why not tax the Rich? - Page 2

One needs to listen to conservatives to balance what one listens to from the liberals. Please give me the link to these % points. As far as I know, the percentages are about the same as it was when I was young.

[Please give me the link to these % points.]

I'll find it for you. It was a demographic research group (non-partisan, I assume). I'll send it tomorrow.
What do you think of squateams idea?

Squatman, sign me up. It's aggravating when the higher ups in the company make more (yes they deserve it) but yet pay the same amount of taxes. I'm not talking percentage either, I'm talking amount.

The only exception to the no deduction rule would have to be children. Can anyone think of other exceptions?

That is basically a flat tax. I would definetly be for it. But, being the passionate conservative that I am, I don't think a family that is below the poverty line should pay. A family of 4 with a household income of 25 grand and under shouldn't have to pay federal taxes. Most people pay hardly any taxes to the federal government. In fact, half the adult population (50%) only pays around 4% of the total federal tax burden. The other half pays the other 96%. In 2001, the top 1% of wage earners paid 34% of all federal taxes. A flat tax would put more burden on the middle and lower class.,

More than some things, what bothers me, is where our taxes go.

Like the grants that non citizens get to open a business...and our own men in our country are not alllowed to get those grants.

Now that is an entirely different issue. We waste soooo much money. I really don't care how that South American butterfly mates.

I know...I know, I did digress.

But the flat tax thing would never work.
And the rich make up the majority of the taxes now anyway, how much more should they accept the burden for all?

Just because they climbed successfully to the top?

Over taxation in any bracket can be a downfall to be sure.
IF they overtax the wealthy, like our Canadian friend said, then is that really success?

And if you work harder for what you have, the burden of taxation is an unfair reward.

I do NOT have alot of money, but if I aim high enough and work harder, it would be mute point to go out and create jobs for others, if I am going to pounded down with taxation anyway.
Therefore free enterprise in the long run, suffers most...and the trickling effect is felt.

For example...why we lose so many businesses overseas...the taxation is only on the importing of the goods, vs the high taxes in america, and the inflated costs of the pay scales we have to compensate for the lack of job and industry...but the cost of import increasing.

I think the import tax is the thing thats needs to be looked at most...from american run businesses that run overseas.

Maybe they will reconsider and stay home.

Are there really answers?

"Okay, well, I didn't succeed as well as you did but since we live in the same society you have to support me and my lazy kind because you have more money than you deserve"
Your wealth is hardly proportional to the work you've put into your life.

Secondly, I don't see why you've decided proportional taxation is somehow just. You're still forcing the rich man to pay more.
If I work twice as hard, why should the gov make me pay twice over?

"Percentage is the only fair mathematical option I see."
Easy, each person pays the same amount of X dollars.
That's trully fair, it means I am not forced to pay more just because I work more.

."Hence if it is a universal commodity, those who have more of it are more successful and will therefore be happier than those that dont."
That's simply not true. Happiness is far more complex then a simple rule of proportionality to your wealth.
We don't have 'money receptors' in our brain that make us happy when we see lots of green.
Marylin Monroe is perhaps the most famous example of wealth and apparently happy, and yet a harsh reality of failed marriages and suicide.

"YES. If you are RICH, you are not an idiot."
George Dubya is not the smartest man out there.

Finally, your assumption that wealth is proportional to the work you put in goes against every historical fact out there.

You have no idea....DT.
In fact Bush is pretty intelligent.

Yes, happiness does not depend on wealth, but the economy depends on the perseverence of those who desire to make more of themselves.

Take away the desire to acquire wealth and pursue dreams, and we wont have BUSINESS and industry that gives everyone jobs.

[If you are rich, you are not an idiot.]

You've obviously never read a Dilbert comic strip? Have you ever attempted to climbed the corporate ladder? Ever heard of nepotism, or good old boy hiring practices? Neither is based on intelligence, skill or experience.

[There are more people out there trying to steal money than earn it]

And what do you consider the stock market? People investing in our future? What happens to individual stocks when people get laid off? The stocks go up, investors get mo' money. What happens when stocks go on a down surge? A selling frenzy occurs because investors don't want to lose money. The future be damned, where's their money? The people who are trying to "earn" money by actually working, are getting screwed by the recently rich of the 90's. The fate of the investment in a company relies on how little the worker gets. Don't believe me, then why make employees pay for healthcare when everyone from the investor to the GM's and the CEO's are making tons of cash?

Better re-think your assesment of the rich my friend. These are evil people, the Enron tapes are a recent example. Pretty soon we po' folk will be eatin' nothin' but cake. (Historical reference).

blah blah blah... the fact is, everything should be equal, why should taxing be any different? because poor people dont like being poor, and rich people like flaunting their wealth. rich people arent neccisarily more intelligent, some people are simpley born into wealth, but why should they have to suffer? they shouldnt. at the other end of the spectrum there are people who are born in to poverty, but there are ways to get yourself out. people shouldnt get special treatment just because theyve had a rough life.

at either end of the spectrum it is possible to maintain a normal relatively happy life, it all comes down to perception.

"A percentage is more realistic compared to a fixed ammount because a rich person may utilize more governmental resources than a poor person will."
Nonesense. The poor through social welfare etc, use far more then the rich do.

People need to stop having this idea that the government must be 'just' in its taxing. It needs to be realistic. The fact is, the rich have more money to spare and so for whatever the gov needs done (health, infrastructure, education, overseas adventures) its going to get that money from the rich.

" it is that poorness creates sadness. "
Only in extreme cases. We only have 'sadness receptors' when we lack food and housing and health.
Our brains were made for hunting on the plains, not for feeling ecstasy when we see green notes.

"My assumption that your wealth relates to the work you put in is not an umbrella theory but it definitely applies to many people."
Absolutely, but it doesn't matter. Percentage taxation is not as just as say fixed amount. Unless you manage to prove your wealth is proportional to the amount of gov money you use.

rich people dont have more extra money all the time, they probably have larger bills, nicer furniture and some extra toys, but they by no means have buckets of extra cash just laying around doing nothing. being rich for most means that you simply have more flow of money, not more "extra" money. people are stupid when managing money most of the time and so rich or poor, they rarely have money just sitting around.

"A lack of fairness in governmental policy will create a downfall of advancement as a whole. It is the desire to outdo your competitor that created innovation, and if the rewards of this success are punished, you are less inclined to achieve it."
I'm not saying that we should eliminate all incentive for working. I am say : we must tax as is practical to achieve the goals only the government can provide.

"Others work hard to achieve the freedom and happiness they desire rather than transfer that blame to rich people."
And others are born into it.

That's not the point. The gov has a role to :
- make sure everyone has equal opportunities
- make sure everyone's basic rights are enforced
- protect the nation from outside threats
- enforce peace and security within the nation

These things require money. Proportional taxation isn't 'fair'. If we assume wealth is completely deserved AND we are trying to be fair; then the only solution is taxation independent of wealth. That is, each person pays X dollars.

If we're being realistic, then the rich must be taxed more simply because its the only way to fund gov programs : the poor have no money.

Now, we must be careful not to squander the money taken this way with any pointless or injust programs. However, some things can only be provided by the government (as much as we may hate it) and the money has to come from somewhere.

[rich people dont have more extra money all the time]

Do you know any rich people Wyote?
The rich are generally regarded as making over $125K per year. To me, the 'rich' should be considered to be millionaires. By that criteria, yes they do have buckets of money. So what if they have more bills to pay because of their money. As an employer told me once after saying I needed a raise, "you should live within your means."

So Bill Gates doesn't have at least one bucket of cash?