Progressive tax vs. flat tax: Is a progressive tax system fair to the wealthy?

  • Diafd dfjiaiofn fdsifiadnf

    Vsdovisdvndigjdig fgiosjfgofe dfigjdf fgdf dg f gd fg df g fd g df g df dfg sf g erg ser g sf gd f g sg r g df g df gfd gr g fd g sdf g dfs g sdf g df gdf g sfd g fds gd f gsf gsd f gdr

  • Yes, it's fair.

    A progressive tax is fair to the wealthy and the poor because the wealthy are already making an enormously large sum of money and the poor are often struggling just to eat. The wealthy already get all sorts of tax breaks that the poor don't get and can find all kinds of loopholes with the help of their lawyers.

  • Yes, progressive tax is more in favor for those who don't make a lot of money.

    Yes, I believe a progressive tax is fair to the wealthy. But more importantly, it is fair to those who do not make a lot of money. More than likely, if it was a flat tax, the flat tax would accommodate to those who make more money. This means that those who do not make a lot of money are having a lot more taken out of their pay checks. This is why it is fair to the wealthy, the progressive tax could be seen more as, though who make less, do not have to pay as much, not the other way around.

  • No, it's UNFAIR.

    The movie "The Pursuit of Happiness" is a prime example of a rags to riches story. That is what America is/was all about. Now, people are so used to looking for a handout and the easy way out. If you spend 10 years of your life in secondary school, why should someone who is given that same opportunity to excel academically get even a small piece of change from the person who worked their tail off to get where they are? America has lost its value in hard work and people just believe that they are entitled to benefits because that is what they have relied on their whole lives.

    Also, the wealthiest 1% pay for over > 70% of the entire countries taxes. Why would we make 3 million people pay MORE taxes than they already do just so the guy who lives in pay check to pay check can have more money to spend on cigarettes? Its ludicrous. The 1% should have much more than a taxbreak and to say that they hire lawyers to find loopholes is completely unjustified. That is an opinion and if you could do it, you would too.

    If you don't want to be on the yes side then maybe you should work a little harder. Your parents pay for you to eat as a child but I should not be paying for you to eat as an adult.

  • No, it's unfair.

    By definition the word "fair" is the treatment of all equally. Democracy has allowed the legalization of theft (equalization) through progressive taxation. Should we base our dinner bills at restaurants on your ability to pay? Maybe have everyone bring their bank statements and the wealthiest pay the majority of the bill. Our basic teaching in elementary schools is based on equal treatment and fairness not progressive theory. Billy doesn't get a longer turn on the swings because he is 3 inches taller than Sally. The progressive theory is built on the moral ground that somehow the wealthy have become wealthy through some sort of immoral means. Which brings us to the definition of wealthy. Who defines what is considered wealthy? Those setting the rules/legislation have the most to gain from unfair practices based on what brings in the most taxes not what is fair treatment of all. Do the politicians lower their wages during hard times or lower GDP? Ask one group if the cost for something they need should be paid for by another group and the answer will generally be yes, but ask all to pay for a tax increase and a lot more consideration will be taken. Having a flat tax still ensures progressive amounts in the coffers but ensures all pay attention when a new program is offered at a tax increase. Democracy will fail when the majority realize they can take something from someone else through a simple vote.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.