[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;32747570]Why should a man more successful than you be penalized for his success?
See, it sounds bad when I put it like that.[/QUOTE]
Make it a patriot law so that it is not so negative, but rather, more positive.
Show us how supportive you are of the country that you're leeching from. Maybe return some privileges.
Other countries do it (or atleast i've heard of it).
But who am i do force wealthy people to give more to the country. Wealthy people more often than not also work hard.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747455]Yeah, everyone does pay taxes, I don't see how that's a valid argument as to taking even MORE money away from people that they've earned.
Principally I don't like the prospect of taxes. I think that what you earn is yours, but obviously I support taxation because a country can't function without it. I understand the necessity of taxation, but I think there are a LOT of other things that can be done to generate revenue besides taking the money that people have earned away.[/quote]An extensive and working public sector is more important for the society than having low taxes, in my opinion. The tax scales can be altered after necessity, but it should always feature progressive taxation because it generates income equality and economical democracy. Whether they have earned it or not is not relevant, they couldn't have earned their money without the help of the rest of the society, so it's natural that you pay your share back so the society can keep providing you with its service. The state doesn't take money to keep in their pockets, it goes right back to the people in the shape of hospitals, schools, roads, libraries, apartments etc.
[quote]
"Besides, closing loopholes is practically raising the taxes anyway."
So what, we should just raise the tax rate but let the loopholes stand so they continue to pay infinitely lower amounts than they are charged? It seems like closing loopholes would be the first logical step towards fixing the tax system.[/QUOTE]Well, someone's reading comprehension is bad... I never said the loopholes shouldn't be closed, nor did I imply that. I simply said that I view closing loopholes as a tax increase in practice.
I expected food...
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32747710]Make it a patriot law so that it is not so negative, but rather, more positive.
Show us how supportive you are of the country that you're leeching from. Maybe return some privileges.
Other countries do it (or atleast i've heard of it).
But who am i do force wealthy people to give more to the country. Wealthy people more often than not also work hard.[/QUOTE]
Leeching off of? If the government so desperately needs their money I highly doubt they are "leeches" of any kind.
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;32746342][release]In a letter to Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp Tuesday, Buffett revealed that his adjusted gross income last year was $62,855,038 and that his taxable income was [B]$39,814,784[/B]. Buffett said [B]he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes.[/B]
[/release]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
are you fucking [b]serious[/b]?!
that actually pissed me off a little bit.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747543]Even though I don't necessarily support taxing them the same amount:
Because they still pay more? 10% of $100,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $60,000[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the elementary school lesson on percentages. Obviously the same percentage nets different tax numbers, but what you aren't factoring in is cost of living. Let's say it's a 10% universal tax, like in your example. to someone making 20-30k a year, which is quite a few people, that's taking a lot of opportunities away from them, when it comes to making decisions about their lifestyle. People who make less money suffer more from taxes than someone who makes millions a year. You take a million bucks in taxes from a man who makes $10 million a year, if he can't make that work, he has serious personal financial issues. Meanwhile you take $2000 away from someone only making $20,000 a year, they have a harder time making ends meet.
And to counter your previous point, that it's somehow just a matter of "Oh he has money, give it to me"
If you really think that's how it works, then you clearly have no idea how this country runs. Taxes go to the Governments, be it state, local or federal, and that tax money is used to keep the whole thing running. Taking into account that the government gets most of its money from taxes, granting tax cuts to the wealthiest, who, like it or not, have more to give, is going to drastically reduce what the government can do.
The same people who complain about raising taxes and how it's so evil are usually the same people who complain about the government not doing enough. News flash: The government can't do shit if it doesn't have money, and the fact that we've suffered through two instances this year alone (That I can remember off the top of my head) in which the government has been on the verge of shutting down, I'd say we have a problem.
So to those who are so adamant in protecting the rich from paying their fair share, understand that you are shooting yourself in the foot, because if you ever look for government grants for school, or if you want to think you're social security is ever actually going to be paid back to you, you're going to be up shit creek.
Also, as a going away present, here's a video I posted in a previous thread, where Buffett comes right out and says he pays a smaller portion in taxes than his secretary. And before you call bullshit, it's a [I]portion[/I], not an amount.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s[/media]
I thought this thread was about jimmy buffett
[QUOTE=Johnny Serva;32746764]The title fooled me into believing this had anything to do with thé Jimmy Buffett.
guess not.[/QUOTE]
*Glances at thead title*
"Dayum, Jimmy's making bank!"
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32746879]There were other huge contributing factors to the economic success during those times, it was a lot more than tax rates alone that brought us a great economy.[/QUOTE]
I never argued against that, however I'm just pointing out (as many many have) that high taxes on the rich [I]don't[/I] make for a terrible economy.
[QUOTE=Void Skull;32747459]Here I was thinking this was about [i]Jimmy[/i] Buffett.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;32748367]I thought this thread was about jimmy buffett[/QUOTE]
Oh good, nice to see I'm not the only one :v:
I really wanted to post the song "I Used To Have Money One Time" but I couldn't find it on youtube. :saddowns:
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32746749]I really don't like this mindset of people saying "he has it, so let's take it"
I understand raising taxes on the rich, but you really expose how greedy and self serving you are when your argument for raising taxes is "HEY THAT GUY HAS LOTS OF MONEY, GIVE IT TO ME".
Whether or not you support raising taxes on the rich, they still earned that money, and they still pay their fair share. If you want them to pay a higher share that's totally understandable and I'm not debating whether or not the taxes should be raised, all I'm saying is that whenever someone uses that argument, they sound like a twat.
You probably have some money too, give me $10, I'm sure you aren't using it.
You'll be able to live without that $10 right? Thanks, then give it to me.
Give me that $10 that you earned. Why? Oh, because I say so, and you can live without it.[/QUOTE]
Hey, you have alot of money, surely you can give us a large portion of it for the good of the country.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;32747570]Why should a man more successful than you be penalized for his success?
See, it sounds bad when I put it like that.[/QUOTE]
Why do people see taxes as penalization? It's redistribution of wealth for the common good.
A better way to put it would be "Why shouldn't a person who's successful do more for his country and the people of that country who are a lot less well off than those who have had success"
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;32749037]
Why do people see taxes as penalization? [b]It's redistribution of wealth for the common good.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
That right there is what I disagree with. I'm all for helping others, and I give to charity constantly, but that's MY choice. I don't like having someone else tell me what I should and shouldn't do; its, IMO, a moral/ethical decision, and I should have the right to make it myself.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
I want everyone well off, I just don't think I should be forced to make it so. Let me choose to do so myself.
Its funny, people think all these rich people are making charities to help people, but it really is reducing their taxes.
[QUOTE=crackberry;32750032]Its funny, people think all these rich people are making charities to help people, but it really is reducing their taxes.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. You can either give it to the government, or a charity. And fuck paying taxes when you make more than $60,000,000 a year.
[video=youtube;MUTf5qvS0Lo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTf5qvS0Lo[/video]
I can't be the ONLY one.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32747153]My point isn't whether or not it's ok to raise taxes on the rich, my point is that your argument is extremely greedy.
And yes, [i]Warren Buffet[/i] wants to be taxed. Warren Buffet doesn't speak for the entire population of rich people, so I don't see that as much of an argument either.
I [b]hate[/b] these people. I agree that they are rich, spoiled cunts. But I also believe in the principle that these rich spoiled fucks earned their money in one way or another, and that saying "They can live without it" is a horrible argument.
And you guys keep talking about the rich as if they pay LESS taxes than the average working person, despite the fact that even after their tax cuts, they're paying huge amounts of money for their taxes.[/QUOTE]
I agree with your argument on the basis that we both agree that the "Give it to me, you can live without it!" attitude is a poor one.
1. Buffet pays less in taxes than his cleaning lady. He paid roughly 17% in taxes. The average working class American will pay anywhere from 15% - 28%.
He is trying to state that there is an obvious problem with our tax system right now. We are suppose to have a graduated income tax. In a time of financial crisis, he believes that the rich shouldn
t be paying the same percentage in taxes as the poor people suffering from it. Is that asking too much?
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32756545]I agree with your argument on the basis that we both agree that the "Give it to me, you can live without it!" attitude is a poor one.
[b]1. Buffet pays less in taxes than his cleaning lady. He paid roughly 17% in taxes. The average working class American will pay anywhere from 15% - 28%.[/b]
He is trying to state that there is an obvious problem with our tax system right now. We are suppose to have a graduated income tax. In a time of financial crisis, he believes that the rich should be paying the same percentage in taxes as the poor people suffering from it. Is that asking too much?[/QUOTE]
Warren buffet is able to pay less percentage of his income tax because most of his "income" comes through investments which are taxed at a lower rate
That means he's not only paying the 17% of taxes for his already enormous income, but also paying taxes on all of his investments as well
Warren Buffet pays not only a higher percentage than his secretary but even in a flat tax system he would be paying more. I think we should close loopholes and balance our budget before we begin taking money away from people who earned it.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32746615]20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.[/QUOTE]
You don't know how the progressive taxation system works do you?
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32746615]20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.[/QUOTE]
So, are you implying that if Buffet made only 30 million a year due to taxes, it means he makes too little?
Wake up people. There is [B]no[/B] reason why these guys wouldn't get taxed by 50%. They will still be able to wipe their asses with banknotes. Throw away saying that "one is entitled to fruits his work", because when you make this much money, it's never solely your work anyway. He makes the money because he "owns" the work of other people, and it's like this with everyone else. when you make over a ten million dollars a year, 50% tax is absolutely fine. I would go for even higher one.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;32746749]and they still pay their fair share.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing: they don't
There are so many loopholes available to the rich that if they really want to, they could get away with paying less than me
by the way, he also didn't say "give it to me" like you implied
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32759083]So, are you implying that if Buffet made only 30 million a year due to taxes, it means he makes too little?
Wake up people. There is [B]no[/B] reason why these guys wouldn't get taxed by 50%. They will still be able to wipe their asses with banknotes. Throw away saying that "one is entitled to fruits his work", because when you make this much money, it's never solely your work anyway. He makes the money because he "owns" the work of other people, and it's like this with everyone else. when you make over a ten million dollars a year, 50% tax is absolutely fine. I would go for even higher one.[/QUOTE]
There was a time in America, a very prosperous time for America in fact, where he'd by paying upwards of 80 or 90 percent
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32759083]So, are you implying that if Buffet made only 30 million a year due to taxes, it means he makes too little?
Wake up people. There is [B]no[/B] reason why these guys wouldn't get taxed by 50%. They will still be able to wipe their asses with banknotes. Throw away saying that "one is entitled to fruits his work", because when you make this much money, it's never solely your work anyway. He makes the money because he "owns" the work of other people, and it's like this with everyone else. when you make over a ten million dollars a year, 50% tax is absolutely fine. I would go for even higher one.[/QUOTE]
Yes let's take 50% of what they earn so they cannot reinvest and create jobs by opening more companies or expanding their existing ones, because they can wipe their asses with banknotes without it, right?
You would go for a higher than 50% tax rate? You're implying that when a person becomes successful, eventually the tax system with actually NEGATE his success and actively take MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT HE EARNED.
[QUOTE=Sickle;32759577]Yes let's take 50% of what they earn so they cannot reinvest and create jobs by opening more companies or expanding their existing ones, because they can wipe their asses with banknotes without it, right?
You would go for a higher than 50% tax rate? You're implying that when a person becomes successful, eventually the tax system with actually NEGATE his success and actively take MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT HE EARNED.[/QUOTE]
I never liked the idea of just raising taxes on the rich. Buffet may be a fan of it, but if anything all that needs to be done is they need to close the loop-holes and offer tax breaks as an incentive to put extra money into the working classes pockets (raises, bonuses, hiring more employees, better benefits, etc), but that'd be hard to maintain because we can all guess where the money will go if something like this happens. (executives)
[QUOTE=Sickle;32759577]Yes let's take 50% of what they earn so they cannot reinvest and create jobs by opening more companies or expanding their existing ones[/QUOTE]
No they don't do that
trickle down economics didn't work with Reagan and it doesn't work now
[QUOTE=Sickle;32759577]Yes let's take 50% of what they earn so they cannot reinvest and create jobs by opening more companies or expanding their existing ones, because they can wipe their asses with banknotes without it, right?
[/quote]
And what will happen with the money when you "tax them away"? Do you imagine they dissapear? No. They get immdiately invested BUT BY THE STATE. They get invested into playing the state services, but also into state orders WHICH DIRECTLY CREATE BUSINESS. Another thing is that as the resources are pumpec back into the populace, often at the low income bracket, or into public wellbeing, everyone can afford to consume more, thus supports the economy again. The money always get invested, and always will support the economy. On the other side, the "job creating investors" often stockpile gold, and THAT'S what DOESN'T support jobs and economy. And even when they invest, they often invest at levels which don't support the low tier populace - luxury goods, exceptional real estate, ecetera. State is bound to invest where it's actually NEEDED, and it will both directly support the populace, by, for instance, paving better roads, which makes everyone's cars last longer and take less gas to run, while also creating business for road paving companies.
[quote]
You would go for a higher than 50% tax rate? You're implying that when a person becomes successful, eventually the tax system with actually NEGATE his success and actively take MORE THAN HALF OF WHAT HE EARNED.[/QUOTE]
Learn maths. You can always set the numbers in a way which simply cut off more and more of the income, yet never let you with less than what you would have with lower income. Learn about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29]Limit[/url] in mathematics.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32759375]Here's the thing: they don't
There was a time in America, a very prosperous time for America in fact, where he'd by paying upwards of 80 or 90 percent[/QUOTE]
I know about that, my friend. That's exactly why I find these today arguments about how "TAXES KILL JOBS" so ridiculous. These people don't know their own history.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32760117]And what will happen with the money when you "tax them away"? Do you imagine they dissapear? No. They get immdiately invested BUT BY THE STATE. They get invested into playing the state services, but also into state orders WHICH DIRECTLY CREATE BUSINESS. Another thing is that as the resources are pumpec back into the populace, often at the low income bracket, or into public wellbeing, everyone can afford to consume more, thus supports the economy again. The money always get invested, and always will support the economy. On the other side, the "job creating investors" often stockpile gold, and THAT'S what DOESN'T support jobs and economy. And even when they invest, they often invest at levels which don't support the low tier populace - luxury goods, exceptional real estate, ecetera. State is bound to invest where it's actually NEEDED, and it will both directly support the populace, by, for instance, paving better roads, which makes everyone's cars last longer and take less gas to run, while also creating business for road paving companies.
Learn maths. You can always set the numbers in a way which simply cut off more and more of the income, yet never let you with less than what you would have with lower income. Learn about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29]Limit[/url] in mathematics.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
I know about that, my friend. That's exactly why I find these today arguments about how "TAXES KILL JOBS" so ridiculous. These people don't know their own history.[/QUOTE]
The state is in debt, I highly doubt that money will go anywhere useful for the time being.
If you take 80% of someone's $100 every month after they released the cure for cancer, you are actively negating their success.
$100x12 = 1200 (Non taxed)
$80x12 = 960 (240 Rev.)
$40x12 = 480 (720 Rev.)
The state can keep well below the halfway mark while still bringing in fuckloads of money. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to take away more than half of a person's earning because they magically produced it. People work hard for their money, rich or not, and shouldn't be taxed more than half at any time.
[QUOTE=Sickle;32760223]The state is in debt, I highly doubt that money will go anywhere useful for the time being.
If you take 80% of someone's $100 every month after they released the cure for cancer, you are actively negating their success.
$100x12 = 1200 (Non taxed)
$80x12 = 960 (240 Rev.)
$40x12 = 480 (720 Rev.)
[/quote]
No you aren't. You would have to take over 100% to NEGATE his success. Whoever makes less, will be taxed less, but not less enough to make more than the one who made $100 and was taxed accordingly.
[quote]
The state can keep well below the halfway mark while still bringing in fuckloads of money. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to take away more than half of a person's earning because they magically produced it. People work hard for their money, rich or not, and shouldn't be taxed more than half at any time.[/QUOTE]
As long as there will be people living without proper ubication, without proper education, and without proper healthcare, there will always will be a need to tax. Unless you want to live in governless state of anarchy, you will always have to tax people to be give the money (control) to the elected officials. There is no ideological difference between 25%, 50% and 90% tax. The taxed people will always make money, and they will always make more money than people who are "less successful".
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32746615]20%-25% sounds fair to me. I'm pretty sure that's more than most of us pay. As long as they don't have to pay anywhere near 50% of what they make. I'd hate for anyone to have to give half of their income away.[/QUOTE]
I believe that most people pay around 40% of their income to the gov't. I could be wrong about this though.
yeah, I thought that a buffet made 60+ mill...
[QUOTE=Sickle;32760223]The state is in debt, I highly doubt that money will go anywhere useful for the time being.
If you take 80% of someone's $100 every month after they released the cure for cancer, you are actively negating their success.
$100x12 = 1200 (Non taxed)
$80x12 = 960 (240 Rev.)
$40x12 = 480 (720 Rev.)
The state can keep well below the halfway mark while still bringing in fuckloads of money. There is ABSOLUTELY no need to take away more than half of a person's earning because they magically produced it. People work hard for their money, rich or not, and shouldn't be taxed more than half at any time.[/QUOTE]
The richer you are, the more you can [i]afford[/i] to have your taxes raised without it actually making a noticeable difference. This is because the things you need to live - water, food, utilities - cost the same for a rich person as they do for a poor person.
It's also why rich people should pay more tax - it costs proportionately less for them to live.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32761343]
It's also why rich people should pay more tax - it costs proportionately less for them to live.[/QUOTE]
If the only things people did all day were eat drink and sleep, this would make sense.
It costs [I]a lot[/I] of money to run a business, especially here in America.
You can't just make a blanken statement that "the rich" should be taxed more. In fact, by doing this, you'd be putting a cap on the little guy even more. When you're right on the edge of a tax bracket, it can be extremely hard to break through it and actually have it be worth the effort, to further your company, if nothing more.
Yes, he did make a lot of money, and yes he probably has more than he needs, but not any more than he deserves for being as good as he (and his team/ company) is at what they do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.