There are many uses for that money, more than 20% of the USA's money belongs to the rich(1% of the population). That money has many more uses that for their leisure. Many are in the streets in poverty while the rich make money. Do the rich need all this money? No. Some may ask, do we have the right to take off the rich, yes! They took money off us. With flat tax, everyone has to pay an equal amount, it suits the rich, but many will not be able to afford it. Proggresive tax is much better. It allows everyone to be taxed according to their income. Much fairer!
You are referring to the idea of a progressive income tax, meaning tax rates increase as a person's income increases. This is the tax system utilized by almost all developed countries, and for good reason. The moral justification of the rich being obligated to give back more to society lies in the fact that generally, the rich have taken more from society. While individual effort is no doubt a significant aspect of a person's ability to amass wealth, there are background factors which play a much larger role. Economic exchange, the route to wealth, is only possible due to a strong community and economy. In a ravaged, third world country, a man could work as hard as any other, but still fail to become as prosperous because they suffer from a lack of advantages such as inadequate education, fewer economic connections, etc. Even here in America, your capability to get richer than the next guy is in part influenced by an upper hand you have been given at some point in your life, one you may not even see or understand. Therefore, we can assume that to some degree, those who achieve have benefited from these advantages that the poor have not. Thus, it makes sense that they should carry a greater responsibility to contribute to society.
We need to tax the rich more because it is one of the sure ways that we can put our economy back onto a stable and sound path. Republicans constantly bash liberal ideas for not working logically on paper. Since most of their economic policies fail, their only argument is that liberal systems may not work in theory. What most people don't realize is there is a huge difference between what works on paper and what happens in real life. On paper, it doest look right to tax certain people more, but in real life, it works, affluent people still have tons of money to spare, and at the same time, small businesses bloom, jobs sky rocket, people are confident enough to invest in the stock market, and the government can pay off its debts and move in a forward, rather than backward direction.
Everyone says that the rich worked hard for their money and shouldn't have to pay more. So does that mean they are saying that the lower class people aren't working just as hard, if not harder? Last time I checked, a film star pushed into cereal commericals as a child who somehow magically climbed the later without even bothering to go to college and try to earn a degree or whatever the heck it is didn't work nearly as hard as the first generation college graduate who is working as a single parent and barely scraping by enough money for food and to keep the roof over their heads! Being lucky has nothing to do with working hard. Besides, if they have SO MUCH money, what's the harm in paying just a LITTLE BIT more?
The theory of the Invisible Hand which states that when individuals try to amass wealth they do so by doing trading, disbursing and employing others which leaves society better off as a whole. While this may be true to some extent, the current stagnation of wealth amongst the very few seems to contradict it. This is where tax brackets come in, an embodiment of the Difference Principle. Imposing higher taxes on the wealthiest and using that money to boost infrastructures that benefit the poorest will help in closing the burgeoning gap between the rich and the poor
The rich are paying a big majority of federal taxes, but there are so many poor that they pay most of taxes, and it may support the government, but all it does is keep the poor, poor; and the rich richer. As Izazovnog said at the top of the page, "there are more uses for money than for leisure".
Preferably I would have a flat tax, but given the current tax system I believe it makes perfect sense to tax the rich more. In the United States tax system there are several people who do not pay tax because there wages are low. This works out well, however, it needs to be balanced out so the government makes up those revenues elsewhere. Since over taxing what little is left of the middle class would only cause them to fall into the lower group, it make more sense to tax the wealthy who can afford to live without the extra money.
I believe the rich have so much to give but they only use it on them. What I don't understand, is why the government would try and take tax money from those who have nothing, like the lower-classes, when the rich have so much to offer. I don't doubt that the rich work hard to get what they have, but so do the middle-classes; the lower-classes take all the jobs that no one ever wants to do. The rich have way better connections than others do, so why not give back? It's not like they would miss a little money from their massive bank accounts anyways.
Only one percent of the U.S is in the upper class. The upper class is the top layer of
society in the United States, consisting of those with great wealth and power and may also be
referred as the rich.They are 100x more wealthy than the average American, compared to where twenty percent of people polled last month said they sometimes didn’t have enough money to put food on the table. The wealthy should have enough money to take care of the poor, and a way that can be done is if they are taxed.The poor should not pay more taxes than the rich, because the poor do not have enough money to maintain the engines of capitalism, so the poor need help from the wealthy to support that.. The rich, being the wealthy have majority of the money in the United States. They must be charged with higher taxes to not only be fair but to help close the wealth gap.
The wealthy upper class have well enough money to support the poor. There may be a small amount of billionaires in the world but they make up a lot of the money in the world, they have a lot of extra money that can be put to a good cause and help the poor with wealth problems. There is a very big difference between the wealthy and the poor, the wealth can support their self and others like the poor, were as the poor can barely support their self, the poor need lots of help from the wealth to get back on their feet, and a way that can be done is if the rich have higher taxes. The rich will still have plenty of money after higher taxes. Sixty eigtht percent of millionaires say they support the tax increase for those earning $1 million or more, according to a survey by The spectrum group.
The poor have been trying to support the engines of capitalism, but are just getting buried in more taxes, the only way out of their wealth gap is a little help from the wealthy, the wealthy have been able to support their businesses, themselves and still have extra money to spend on whatever they like. One of the best things their extra money could go to is the poor, that will not only help close the wealth gap but help Americans live an equal life to others.
A fundamental myth of economics is "trickle-down" theory. Supposedly, if you give the rich more money, they will inevitably spend it on products boosting the entire economy. As nice as this is in theory, in actuality, it rarely ever works. Most of the time, the rich actually sit on their wealth, hoarding it. Or, they put it into securities, which have some benefit to the economy as a whole, but little benefit to the lower classes. Yet some negative votes have brought up the theory of the rich fleeing the country and placing money in tax havens. This is true. Thus, the best option is to close significant tax loopholes, such as repatriation (putting money from your company in a foreign branch/department), giving the government the revenue without driving the rich away. A simpler tax code is what the US desperately needs.
Just because they have more money, doesn't mean anyone has a right to that money, whether it be the government or the poor. We are not a socialist country who takes from the rich to give to the poor. It doesn't work and should not be attempted. We need to redo the tax brackets, remove at least most maybe even all tax breaks, have everyone pay a fair amount and that's it. If you're still poor, well that's your problem. It may sound callous and mean but it's the truth. Your life is your own responsibility. Not anyone elses.
I made 1 million dollars last year and paid 100,000 dollars in taxes. Another individual made 20,000 and paid no taxes. Who did not pay any tax? It is about PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE OF THE TAX. 100,000 dollars is more than 0 dollars paid. Why should I have to pay more in "TAXES"? It's not how much I made - it's about how much I paid!
It has been several years that this topic ha been wandering in people's mind, but never has it come to a conclusion. In my opinion, the rich should not be taxed more. Tax is A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits. High-profile rich guys, like Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg,comment that they want to pay more in taxes. However, raising taxes on the wealthy is the wrong approach that will hurt everyone.
Tax hikes on the rich are unjustified from a moral and a pragmatic perspective. All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their own labour. People should be free to spend or donate their rightfully earned money as they please without government coercion. It is unjust for the government to forcibly take money from one person to give to someone else in the name of “fairness.” well if I talk about fairness, no matter what society, culture, country you go to or come from there will be corrupt people that only seek personal gain. Government and people are judging on to make rich make more tax just because the hard earned money is indirectly going to the corrupt government . As in India, the mind map of the politicians is to make rich pay more taxes on the sympathetic note that all this money will go in development of the nation and in help for the needy , and actually manipulate them and snatch into their own pockets.
One simply becomes rich if they get educated, have the will power for doing something benevolent .It is education that can make the difference between rich and poor. It is the poor who haven’t taken education seriously
I would like to question my opponents on the note that why should the government help the poor where they don’t want to get educated and become affluent. Why should the rich give more taxes to help poor. Why should they let go their hardships? Today's world is a unsympathetic virtue.
This is why taxes should not be increased on the rich. What people have to understand about increasing taxes on the rich, which is one of Obama's major plans during his second term, is that it will not promote any stimulation in our economy. The basis of Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the rich, and give to the poor, without strengthening any type of industry that may lead to the stimulation of our economy. Taxing the rich will not decrease the unemployment rate, and it will not strengthen the U.S. Economy. All it will do is put money in the hands of people who either cannot find work, or who are satisfied with an extremely low check from the government several times a month. On the other hand, using government income to strengthen major corporations and industries in the U.S., which was one of Mitt Romney's major plans for America, would have had a much greater chance of creating jobs, and putting unemployed American's back to work. This is plan that democrats have absolutely no understanding of. All they care about is making the middle and upper class satisfy the financial needs of the poor, which will not promote any stimulation in our economy. This is a system that has to change in America if any economic success is going to occur over the next four years.
I acknowledge that 1% of America's population own's 99% of the wealth, but that same one percent pays for most of the taxes in America. That 1% also creates jobs, so less taxes for the rich means more jobs with that extra money. This here is why the job market isn't good: The rich are being taxed to much, and that money filched from them can create jobs. Also, the job market isn't good because nobody is bold enough. Teacher are telling students to work hard to get a job, but with everyone getting jobs, who is creating them? The rich took big risks with their money, failed, and eventually became rich. It wasn't easy.
Some may say that the poor deserve more money. However, the welfare program is meant for people who are working hard to make ends meet, not for people who are too lazy to get up. My Grandfather once said, "People don't just sit and starve to death, they always do something."
The rich earned their money through blood, sweat, and tears, and the government should't begrudgingly penalize them for succeeding in life. Eighty percent of millionaires are self made. Instead of taking money from the rich and give it to the poor, the government should let the rich keep more money, to give the poor jobs.
This is capitalism, the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is about time we get back to that.
The belief that just because a person has more of something that this means we somehow deserve it ourselves does not make sense. If we can force people to pay more in taxes simply because they "have more money", what's stopping us from forcing stronger and more physically able men to perform our construction jobs simply because they "have more strength"? Or taking a kidney from somebody to give to somebody else because this person "had more than they need". We have no moral authority to judge how rich a person SHOULD be nor should we have the LEGAL authority to confiscate money from those who have plenty of it. Many billionaires are very generous with their money, (Bill Gates), and we don't need a government to act as our nanny or mother telling us to share.
Why should the rich spend their hard earned money on someone else when they've worked hard for that green? Giving a portion of someone's salary to someone else's problem won't solve it, but yet create it. Taking someone else's money won't teach those with financial problems how to be financially stable, rather makes them rely on someone else's money. Same with government assistance programs. Those programs don't teach people how to be financially stable or be independent, rather it makes them think they can get whatever they need right away. The other thing is that taxing the rich more doesn't show financial equality. I'm in favor of a same tax system where everyone pays the same percentage of taxes, and shows equality.
Raising taxes actually gets the government less money because he rich will move their money to tax havens. That means they will also have less money to spend in their business. This means less economic expansion. If you like at times when taxes has been cut dramatically (Harding-Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan) then you will see far more rapid economic growth and more revenue. This is because less taxes means more people can move into higher tax brackets and then get taxed at a higher rate assuming we are not under a flat tax. A flat tax however, is also good because it encourages fairness and simplicity with only one rate in everyone. More simplicity means that rich people will take more money out of their tax shelters and use it for economic expansion.
Send me a challenge if you want to debate this topic.
What people have to understand about increasing taxes on the rich, which is one of Obama's major plans during his second term, is that it will not promote any stimulation in our economy. The basis of Obama's plan is to increase taxes on the rich, and give to the poor, without strengthening any type of industry that may lead to the stimulation of our economy. Taxing the rich will not decrease the unemployment rate, and it will not strengthen the U.S. Economy. All it will do is put money in the hands of people who either cannot find work, or who are satisfied with an extremely low check from the government every week. On the other hand, using government income to strengthen major corporations and industries in the U.S., which was one of Mitt Romney's major plans for America, would have had a much greater chance of creating jobs, and putting unemployed American's back to work. This is plan that democrats have absolutely no understanding of. All they care about is making the middle and upper class satisfy the financial needs of the poor, which will not promote any stimulation in our economy. This is a system that has to change in America if any economic success is going to occur over the next four years.
What a lot of people don't understand about this country, is how it was founded. Colonists came from other countries to America for "religious freedom." This is what we're told, when in actuality they came for economic freedom. America at it's birth was full of opportunities. The tobacco crop as well as new land brought a lot of hardworking people (who could not move up in their countries) to America where they could be someone if they worked hard enough. The revolutionary war was about taxation without representation. The British government was taking the colonist's money as well as establishing British corporations in the new lands so that the colonies could not compete and therefore not prosper individually. Without incentive, people do not work hard...It is sad but a true fact of the human condition. Therefore we rebelled. This rebellion created a nation where people were not "equal" but had "equality of opportunity." People in this day and age confuse those two terms greatly. Every one in this country has the ability to work hard, go to school, and make money. Some people may have a harder path, but the path is still there. That is why people come to this country!!!!!! The capitalist economy creates incentive, competition, and therefore progress. Do you think you would have the iPhone in your hand without private enterprises. And do you think those enterprises would exist if people were taxed higher and given no incentive? As far as inheritance goes, it will always be at play...Because the first and smallest society is that of the family. Should a mother or father who makes something great not be able to pass that down to their offspring? It can be frustrating when people simply inherit money but it is not wrong. The first society is family then comes that of the state. This country wants equality. How is segregating the rich and making them pay more, equal? Please explain that to me.