Amazon.com Widgets
  • Taxing the rich produces negative effects.....

    For some reason, people think of this from an emotional point of view. The bottom line as we move towards more progressive tax policies we create improper incentives/disincentives. There is also a limit on how progressive taxes can be..... I.E the exodus from California and the Northeast. Looking at demographics you will see the wealth is not staying in high tax areas but moving overseas or at the very least towards states with little to no state income tax.

    At the federal level we need to be even more careful. During WWII when tax rates for the rich were extremely high, normal Americans wouldn't dream of leaving the US. Now there are a bunch of great places to live outside the US where you get more bang for your tax bucks. If the rate went to 45% for the rich you might as book them one way tickets.

    The rich already see very little return on their tax dollars as very little of tax dollars are used to make improvements, but instead for entitlements and debt interest. Don't bite the hand that feeds.

  • The Current Tax They Pay is a LITTLE ridicilous

    If you do the math (these numbers for Mitt Romney's income and how much he paid in tax came from discomfiting and are for 2010) 6,200,000/42,500,500 = 0.145. If you multiply that by 100 (to make it a %) then it comes to 14%. This is what someone like Mitt pays in income tax while (according to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2013/01/05/updated-2013-federal-income-tax-brackets-and-marginal-rates/)

    A single "filer" who makes $36,250 pays a whopping 25% income tax. That means that filer really makes $27,187. While you complain Mitt pays a pathetic 14% out of the millions he makes, that man who made $36,250 not has to pay the rent (mortgage or anything else home-related), insurance, healthcare, food, heating, ect... With $9062.5 less in his pocket... I think that is a little unfair (i understand life is not fair and i am not a communist, but this seems a little ridiculous).

    Look, I am not saying taxing the rich would balance the budget, nor am I saying "all rich should pay 60% tax". I am just saying raising the income for rich would make things seem more fair and pump more money from the rich into congress. It would also (possibly) ease the tax on the middle/lower classes who need the money more.

    I do agree setting up a national sales tax would pump huge amounts of money into congress, but I am just saying... Taxing the rich a BIT more would seem more fair.

  • Of course they should

    Not all rich people are rich because of hard work, a lot of them are rich because either a.) they inherited the money or b.) they're a celebrity. The person to on the con side said no because mitt paid 2.5 million in taxes in one year but he didn't have to work hard like any of the middle or poor classes would. In 2010, Mitt Romney, made about 42.5 million dollars and paid 6.2 million dollars in taxes. He paid more money in taxes in a year than the average person will make in their entire lifetime. The reason the middle class pays so little is because they don't make enough. I know a lot of working poor & middle class people who work 60 hours a week and pay a several grand because they can't give more without going homeless, not being able to buy food or providing healthcare to themselves & their families. But mr. 42.5 million dollar romney should get a tax break because yanno 6.2 million dollars out of 42.5 million is way too much. Let's just make the middle class more poor and the poor even poorer. The poor & middle class struggle, the rich classes doesn't at all.

  • Yes They Should

    I believe the rich should have to pay more taxes. They may have earned their money, but so does the minimum wage earner who barely scrapes by. Also, I feel like it is not stealing rich people's money when they are taxed. Ultimately that money will turn around and be a benifit (hopefully, if the government does it's job right) to the whole country, themselves included.

  • Pay The Needy

    There are many poor needy people and families that need the money much more than the rich do. Couldn't they spare a little extra to give to the ones less fortunate than themselves. It's selfish not to, I think. In plus, many needy families didn't make it this way of themselves. Help out a friend in need!

  • Loophole abuse has to end

    Given that many of America's rich already pay less in percentage of taxes it is pretty clear that changed is needed. They can afford to pay a little extra and it would give the economy a significant boost so honestly why not? So some rich kid who was born into money can continue to never work hard in their life?

  • Obvious choice for responsible government

    It's only common sense that a true democracy that is created by the people for the people would draw the largest share of it's tax base from the citizens who own the most wealth. Unless you want to ague against the values of freedom and liberal democracy, there is no alternative. Everyone is a citizen, everyone is represented, and everyone owes a portion of their wealth to the state. To rich people, even a much larger amount of money means much less than a small amount of money does for a poor person. They can easily afford it, and their country needs it.

  • What else is there?

    What else would you like? A flat tax that forces the poor to pay more and creating suffering and then force that poor community to support that large amount of the community and hurting large poor families. All arguments of "we can't punish the rich for their work". BY that definition then ALL taxes are a form of punishment!

  • Pay more for being successful?

    I am no way rich at all, but rich people got to their status by working hard and getting to that point. People think lower classes should get a break but upper class gets the same percentage but got that way because they know how to manage money and make money, so it may seem like they dont have to pay much but i know that mitt ronmey a few years back paid 2.5 million to taxes for one year. That says it all, lower class complains about paying so many taxes when you pay maybe a couple grand.

  • Investment in Security

    Appeals to progressive taxation are based on emotion and falsehoods. If Americans wanted to balance the budget they would need a national sales tax, that way you could collect money from people based on spending rather than income and people who break the law to earn money or immigrants or tourists who use American services who are currently not contributing would pay as well. This would raise far more money.

    However a lot of people are jealous of wealth and think taking it will solve all the problems even though rich people spend millions on lawyers to hide their money overseas and not pay any taxes when they are raised, so in the end higher taxes actually lower the amount of money the government makes. History proves this but people who are driven by ignorance and envy will always think they can make other people pay for their life and not realize those people got rich by being clever about making money and are clever at keeping it.

  • They already carry the country

    The richest 1% of the USA population already cover 37% of the taxes for the American people.

    While the poorest 47% of the US population all together only cover 2.5% of the taxes.

    Who is not pulling their weight? It is not the rich people, they are already taxed enormously.

  • Discriminatory Taxation is Unjust and Counterproductive.

    Firstly, the rationale for the payment of taxes is that it supports the state, which safeguards rights against aggression and fulfills public goods that benefit the society. People benefit from the institution of the state's protection of property and other institutions that foster prosperity (such as infrastructure and broad basic education) in PROPORTION to their property (whether it be in the form of tangible, intangible, or human capital). As such, the only just tax is a proportional one.

    Secondly, high nominal rates of taxation create incentives to engage in unproductive activities (Lobbying politicians for loopholes, finding loopholes in the tax code), while reducing the incentives for productive activity, such as work, business creation, and capital formation by reducing their after-tax return.

    So, on both moral and practical grounds progressive taxation is bankrupt.

  • Taxing the rich produces negative effects.....

    For some reason, people think of this from an emotional point of view. The bottom line as we move towards more progressive tax policies we create improper incentives/disincentives. There is also a limit on how progressive taxes can be..... I.E the exodus from California and the Northeast. Looking at demographics you will see the wealth is not staying in high tax areas but moving overseas or at the very least towards states with little to no state income tax.

    At the federal level we need to be even more careful. During WWII when tax rates for the rich were extremely high, normal Americans wouldn't dream of leaving the US. Now there are a bunch of great places to live outside the US where you get more bang for your tax bucks. If the rate went to 45% for the rich you might as book them one way tickets.

    The rich already see very little return on their tax dollars as very little of tax dollars are used to make improvements, but instead for entitlements and debt interest. Don't bite the hand that feeds.


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