Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

[Lamb]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

 

[Josiah]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

IMO, no.


IF there is an income tax at all, I'm in favor of a flat tax. AND I'm in favor of EVERYONE paying something (right now, most Americans pay no income taxes at all).

But I'm in favor of eliminating all income taxes, and replacing it with a "value added tax" (sales tax). What we BUY being taxed.



.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree with the value added tax providing essentials in the food category and clothing the same way being excluded. Not talking chips and soda or fashion clothes but lets say items that a normal person would buy to survive, all else being taxed

 

[Albion]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

It is highly questionable. After all, under a flat-rate system of taxation they pay a lot more money than other people.

 

[psalms 91]

It is highly questionable. After all, under a flat-rate system of taxation they pay a lot more money than other people.

Considering their wealth and their tastes that is fair if they dont want to be taxed for their luxuries then let them buy like the ones that dont have as much

 

[Albion]

You think that's an ethical way to run a government, huh? You might as well say, "If they don't like it, then they can just emigrate."

 

[psalms 91]

You think that's an ethical way to run a government, huh? You might as well say, "If they don't like it, then they can just emigrate."

You use more then you should pay more and those that cant shouldnt. Seems about right to me. Of course you must love the current system where the property owner pays for schools etc while the renter does not, that suit you because I dont hear that issue being brought up

 

[Josiah]

You use more then you should pay more and those that cant shouldnt. Seems about right to me. Of course you must love the current system where the property owner pays for schools etc while the renter does not, that suit you because I dont hear that issue being brought up

Interesting concept that the USERS should pay more..... of course, it's the opposite around the world; those who receive welfare or who use free college education actuallly pay LESS taxes.


IMO, the government should not be about punishing those who work hard, who do well, who are successful - seems very counterproductive to me; government should encourage those things.


And of course, we Christians (and Jews and Muslims) have a divine example, because God calls for a flat tax. ALL (from the very poorest to very richest) is to give 10% (flat) of ALL they receive (whether that be one dollar or one billion dollars). The Bible prescribes the flat tax. All contributing EQUALLY in direct proportion to their income (no exemptions, lol). Interesting. I wonder why so many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) are against that? Don't know. Why so many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) think what God set up is unfair and wrong. Hum. I wonder what the total tax revenue to all levels of government would be if EVERYONE in the USA was taxed EXACTLY 10% of EVERYTHING they made (no exemptions)? I wonder if it would be more than what we have now? I don't know. Maybe government thinks it requires more than God.


But as I said, I like the "value-added" tax better.




.

 

[Tigger]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

I say no but on the flip side of the same coin they shouldn’t be able to hide their money in tax shelters or any other slide of hand trick :juggle:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

Yes.

Their income (the rate of increase of their wealth) ought to be taxed at a higher rate than the income of people who have less income.

I also think that inheritances ought to be taxed if the inheritance is large.

 

[TurtleHare]

I don't feel there should be a punishment for working hard and making your fortune by having to pay more taxes like Ocasio-Cortez is demanding, that 70% just cuz she's jealous and is eager to spend someone else's moolah.

 

[psalms 91]

Interesting concept that the USERS should pay more..... of course, it's the opposite around the world; those who receive welfare or who use free college education actuallly pay LESS taxes.


IMO, the government should not be about punishing those who work hard, who do well, who are successful - seems very counterproductive to me; government should encourage those things.


And of course, we Christians (and Jews and Muslims) have a divine example, because God calls for a flat tax. ALL (from the very poorest to very richest) is to give 10% (flat) of ALL they receive (whether that be one dollar or one billion dollars). The Bible prescribes the flat tax. All contributing EQUALLY in direct proportion to their income (no exemptions, lol). Interesting. I wonder why so many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) are against that? Don't know. Why so many Christians (and Jews and Muslims) think what God set up is unfair and wrong. Hum. I wonder what the total tax revenue to all levels of government would be if EVERYONE in the USA was taxed EXACTLY 10% of EVERYTHING they made (no exemptions)? I wonder if it would be more than what we have now? I don't know. Maybe government thinks it requires more than God.


But as I said, I like the "value-added" tax better.




.

You know if that were the case in this country therre would be no debt for the country but we both know that the mopre you make the less you pay and in many cases pay nothing

 

[Arsenios]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

No - They should be publicly and painfully executed
and their wealth turned over to politicians
who promise to give it all to the poor...

Everyone knows that!


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

In a perfect world taxes would be at a minimum and citizens would fund non-profit organizations to help those in need. Everyone who was able would work in some capacity (caring for a family would be looked upon as a job well done). Human needs would be supplied by the philanthropy of those who have more than they need.
Since our world is so imperfect, governments must take money from those who have more than they need. A progressive tax is the most beneficial approach to meeting the needs of those living in dire circumstances.

 

[Josiah]

You know if that were the case in this country therre would be no debt for the country but we both know that the mopre you make the less you pay and in many cases pay nothing

You have it backwards....


In the USA, in 2016... according to the Department of the Treasury....

The top 1% of taxpayers paid 27.1% of all federal taxes raised.
The top 20% of taxpayers paid 87.4% of all federal taxes.
50% of taxpayers together paid only 3.5% of federal taxes.


Here's the reality: The "rich" pay nearly all the taxes...... HALF of Americans, put together, supply only a tiny percentage of the government income, a mere token amount



Repressive income taxes simply punish success, accomplishment, responsibility.... and those who take risks (on which our economy depends) and those who employ.... Whereas over half of Americans pay practically nothing.


Here's what seems fair..... exactly what God did in the OT, exactly the approach God took..... everyone pays the same. It's call "the flat tax." EVERYONE pays exactly the same percentage of their income, in proportion to their income. God thinks this is best and it seems to me maybe He's right.

Another approach is to eliminate the income tax entirely.... in stead of punishing employers and successful people who grow the economy, tax in proportion to what people SPEND, a national sales tax (or what Europeans like to call "the value added tax." But sadly, what most do is KEEP the repressive income tax and just ADD the value added tax, but there is one thing governments everywhere LOVE - taking OTHER people's money away from them so government can spend it and build up a large pool of voters who feel dependent on government; politicians go to GREAT lengths to get this money from as FEW voters as possible and give it as MANY voters as possible.... it's what keeps them in power.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

You know if that were the case in this country therre would be no debt for the country....

If everything that the richest 1% OWN were confiscated (not taxed) it still would not pay off the national debt.

 

[tango]

Should the very rich be taxed at a higher percentage?

The trouble with trying to tax the very rich is that most of the time it just doesn't work. Even ignoring the issues with defining "very rich" and "a higher percentage", the very rich are the ones who can afford to hire clever accountants who know the tax code inside out and backwards and can set up a front company in Panama owning a discretionary trust in the Cayman islands, which in turn invests in a corporate shell in Monte Carlo, that owns a hedge fund in Belize, that has quite a lot of money. Or they just renounce their citizenship and leave the country.

What I think is needed is something more like a flat rate of tax, or something that progresses very slowly. All income-related taxes, actual and effective, need to be combined in one place so it's clear what is being paid and when. That means income tax, self-employment tax, tax credits etc, all combined into one. It makes no sense offering tax credits at the bottom end of the income scale - it makes more sense to just not take the money in the first place rather than expecting people to figure their taxes and then give some or all of it back. If I recall Trump increased the standard deduction to $12,000 per person, which I think makes a lot of sense.

The key thing with taxes is that the people who can legally avoid paying them, will avoid paying them. The likes of you and I wouldn't go out of our way to increase our tax liability over what we legally have to pay, so there's no point thinking that very wealthy people will either. Hence taxes have to be easy to understand and difficult to avoid. One problem with taxing income is that it becomes easier to avoid paying it through a variety of means, both legal and illegal. At the most simple level you might have a waitress not declaring her tips, or a gardener accepting payment in cash and forgetting to mention it on his tax return. At a different level you might have a corporate structure being a little creative with what counts as a business expense, or multiple businesses shifting money back and forth between themselves to delay paying taxes. Without verifying far more tax returns than is sensible it's hard to see how the tax agencies can possibly know whether that entry on a tax form is correct or embellished, especially when those at the top of the income scale have more to save and would therefore go to greater lengths to cover up what they are really doing, if they are up to something illegal.

Taxes on purchases are much harder to avoid, as are taxes on property which can't move across an international border with the stroke of a pen. One problem with taxing property is that the tax tends to be very regressive (think of the person who bought their house 60 years ago, now lives on a pension and struggles to pay the taxes since the area gentrified). Taxing purchases is far more progressive and also encourages saving rather than endlessly spending. The person making $20m working for a hedge fund probably still wants their Ferrari even if it does cost an extra 20% (if anything that extra charge just makes it more of a status symbol). The trouble with this is that the people currently on a low income would end up worse off because their income taxes wouldn't go down meaningfully and their purchase-related taxes would rise sharply. If purchase-related taxes only applied to specific items, it would just trigger another game of cat-and-mouse where, say, a widescreen TV (luxury item) would be fitted with less efficient circuitry and a heatsink so it could be considered to be a space heater (essential item) that happened to have a screen on it.

It really is hard to know how best to structure a tax code such that lawful expenses can be deducted but without leaving it open to abuse.

 

[tango]

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by $20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got $1 out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a $1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　


The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.