Do you BELIEVE that someone making 100k a year needs to pay at least 50k in taxes?

[Masark]

Canadians pay low federal taxes and high state taxes.

Uhh, you've got that backwards.

[Cheze]

the top marginal rate isn't close to 50% these days and nobody's talking about raising it to that, and someone making 100k (assuming individual earner, childless) would not be paying the top marginal rate anyway

so no, pretty much nobody believes that non-top-marginal-bracket folks should be paying 50% of their gross income in taxes

ed: in the united states, anyway

[Cæli]

Um... invest in other businesses? Use that money for personal conveniences you DESERVED?! Like why motivate yourself to make all of that money if other people are going to tax the fuck out of you for being better than 95% of all of the other lazy people at making a profit?

as long as the poorest person on earth dies or suffer of poverty, that means that there is persons that are getting too much, we can't ignore this

I mean if there were no one suffering yes well all of that would not matter and anybody could get the wealth they work for

but look at how people are dying on your street, we need to evolve into a sane society to evolve even faster, which mean getting rid of our problems

until that I'll repeat myself but no one need 250k to survive or even live a healthy life

I'm not talking about lazy people here, everyone should contribute

did I made you think about something :P

[Wyrt]

No one in the US pays 50% of their income in taxes. Another Jaylock troll thread.

[Cheze]

it's also worth mentioning that from 1950 to 1980 (i.e. the period of supposed american 'greatness' that most Trump supporters seem to want to return to) the top marginal income tax rate was between 70 and 90%. And lo, the country did not descend into communist dystopia.

[UnknownShadows00]

as long as the poorest person on earth dies or suffer of poverty, that means that there is persons that are getting too much, we can't ignore this

I mean if there were no one suffering yes well all of that would not matter and anybody could get the wealth they work for

but look at how people are dying on your street, we need to evolve into a sane society to evolve even faster, which mean getting rid of our problems

until that I'll repeat myself but no one need 250k to survive or even live a healthy life

I'm not talking about lazy people here, everyone should contribute

did I made you think about something :P

Not really. If you're not contributing, sane or not, you don't deserve the fruits of labor. If you've managed to build an empire, of course you deserve millions or billions. If you haven't done anything unique to to aid the public or rather haven't done something that brings people in, you don't deserve the reward. Plain and simple. You can get a survivable wage for practically sitting around doing shit's worth of a job anywhere on the planet. There's no excuse.

[Skandulous]

Do you realize corporations move and operate in other countries for the primary reason that their tax codes are much more favorable for business environments?

Do you realize that if you cut corporate and small business tax rates, they can reinvest that money in the economy thus creating more jobs and increasing income across the board? Thus, more taxes are paid. This is a blatantly obvious side effect of lowering taxes. More taxes will be paid because more money will be paid out to people in the form of jobs.

I honestly want to know, why is it that the liberal ideology when it comes to domestic taxing is to "tax the rich" at astronomical rates? How is that going to help the economy? Don't you realize that when businesses and individuals have to pay more of their earned money to the federal govt, they have to shelter the money they DO get to keep instead of reinvesting it?

They move becauase the labor and materials are cheaper not because of taxes.

[HandyTheRet]

I'll even put this in WoW terminology.

Imagine a 1 v 1 involving a class with very poor mobility and one lowly stun. This chump ends up randomly fighting a gladiator rogue. Now imagine that diminishing returns didn't exist.

What you have here is no taxes. The rogue stun locks the guy so badly that he literally doesn't have control over his character anymore because he has access to such a small toolkit of resources that his mobility has gone to zero.

Now let's go to low taxes. Talents have been introduced, and the class gets in it's talent tree a stun break and a quicker cool down on his stun. The same matchup happens, and now the rogue opens with a stun, but the guy stun breaks and gets off his stun. The rogue still ends up locking the guy down and winning, but the guy made more ground.

Having an ideal tax rate, or DR, introduced, the rogue opens with a stun, the guy stun breaks, the rogue goes to stun again but this one doesn't last as long. The guy isn't paralyzed the entire time, and has increased mobility. He has a greater chance at success than he once did.

The final example is high taxation, and to show why taxation has its limits on its own DR. Once the taxes teach a point where the two are exactly even on the same playing field, the rogue says fuck this and rerolls. These people are fickle and will bounce if you enforce too stringent a DR system. That's why it needs to be reasonable.

To answer your question, no, a 50% tax rate at 100k should and never will happen. 25%? Yes. 60% after 250k? Yupp. 70% after 500k? Yupp. 80% after 1,000,000? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Taxes isn't about money. Taxes is about resources. Guess what happens when the castle gets built bigger and the peasants live in mud huts? People start losing heads.

Just food for thought on your dumbass "money is a game and I wanna win" bullshit.

[Super Kami Dende]

If a person making $20k a year spends 90% of his income on basic necessities (food/shelter) and somebody making $100k a year spends 30% of income in the same necessities, why should the poor people pay the same percentage in taxes when they are more dependent on whatever's left on a regular basis?

Why should the Richer person be required to prop up the Poor people just because they get paid more for doing a likely more important Job or working Longer hours?

[Charge me Doctor]

Do you realize that if you cut corporate and small business tax rates, they can reinvest that money in the economy thus creating more jobs and increasing income across the board?

That's a REALLY long shot, because most business will either ignore this, or tax cuts should be really high to justify it

[Cæli]

Not really. If you're not contributing, sane or not, you don't deserve the fruits of labor. If you've managed to build an empire, of course you deserve millions or billions. If you haven't done anything unique to to aid the public or rather haven't done something that brings people in, you don't deserve the reward. Plain and simple. You can get a survivable wage for practically sitting around doing shit's worth of a job anywhere on the planet. There's no excuse.

like I said, not counting the "lazy", contribute 0 get 0 is fair (even though would probably not be allowed by the state), thing is some people die of poverty obviously not by choice (and mostly not in rich countries), so I'm not sure what you're trying to defend. not talking about deserving or not. obviously if you contribute 100 you should get 100. was not really my point

[Wyrt]

Why should the Richer person be required to prop up the Poor people just because they get paid more for doing a likely more important Job or working Longer hours?

Because benefits to society like better, cheaper education and universal healthcare means the poorer person is better able to move up in the world and will have more disposable income to spend on goods and services which means the richer person will make more money because they'd have more customers.

[Charge me Doctor]

They move becauase the labor and materials are cheaper not because of taxes.

well, also moving away industry into a country where you plan to sell shit is a good way to deal with custom taxes. A car built in USA will sell poorly in Russia (because of all legal leaps you need to do to get matching certificates, move it through customs, etc), but a car designed by USA but built in Russia will sell real good, because you don't need to spend money on ridiculous shit.

[HandyTheRet]

Also food for thought, in the WW2 era and 1950s, the top earners in the country paid 90% in income tax at the top bracket, and it was the most prosperous time in the history of this country and literally is what created the strongest middle class in the world. By miles and miles and miles on the scale of growth and productivity. Our top earners now make thousands of times more money than they once did, and pay 40%, and the middle class doesn't exist anymore, and we have the greatest wealth inequality since the 1920s when monopolies ruled and five guys controlled the entire United States economy.

[Resiak]

Why should the Richer person be required to prop up the Poor people just because they get paid more for doing a likely more important Job or working Longer hours?

Seen similar comments multiple times in this thread already. Want to know why. That person didn't get rich by himself. He provided a service that people thought was worth paying for. Some where in the pyramid of people that gave him money to get where he is are those evil evil poor people. Do you know what happens when those people get poorer and poorer? They stop buying things. People that where just above those poor people, become poor. The pyramid starts collapsing.

You need consumers. The more people that have money to consume, the more money circulates to the top.

Lets put it this way. Who do you think is the number one consumer of nestles products? It's not rich people who shop at trader joes or world market or what ever trendy market is in the area buying organic products. It's the lower middle class and poor that can't afford higher price groceries. Now say the rich no longer need to pay taxes. Food stamp programs get cut because we can't have those nasty entitlement programs. The poor start struggling to feed their families more and more. Revenue starts going down. They start laying off people because the demand is starting to dry up. Again, things start collapsing.

The rich arn't the primary consumers. Their not the ones spending their money on all the products their creating. You want to keep making money? You better make sure your doing your part to make sure the poor and middle class have money to spend.

[Cæli]

Because benefits to society like better, cheaper education and universal healthcare means the poorer person is better able to move up in the world and will have more disposable income to spend on goods and services which means the richer person will make more money because they'd have more customers.

I see that as evolution of society, if we eradicate poverty, if we reach a high enough level of technology for everyone, then all that is left is a world where those who want extra benefit work to have that benefit. however those how does not catch that benefit should not get too much basic benefit. else everyone will stop working. it should still be possible to lose your home, the ability to raise your children. but if that happen, the state should then re-educate you in a way, not letting you die. everywhere in the world, I believe that's the best balance we could find to make the world evolve at a decent rate. but you should be able to earn money if you contribute. defining contribution is probably a hard challenge to come. I believe it should be based on the will to contribute, not the will to contribute specifically to get money.

[Hammerfest]

Do you believe that if someone is making over 100k a year, they should be forced to pay 50k of it in taxes to the Govt?

No. They should pay under 15%... or less than they give to their church.

[cuafpr]

I'm not intending to sound flippant, but, is 100k considered a lot of money these days?

right double the median / averages .. i'd say yes its good money.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us/

[Felya]

Why should the Richer person be required to prop up the Poor people just because they get paid more for doing a likely more important Job or working Longer hours?

Why does paying back the country that housed your success been turned into propping up poor people? Last I checked, poor people are just like Americans who are rich. While poor people and middle class contribute a far greater percentage of their disposable income to wellbeing of the country. It used to be that paying taxes was an honor, because people were proud to contribute to the country. Now we argue that poor people are mooching? Poor people mooching? Poor... mooching... wtf?

[Cantheal]

Do you realize corporations move and operate in other countries for the primary reason that their tax codes are much more favorable for business environments?

TOTALLY! I mean with out those pesky regulations to properly dispose of that silly waste from manufacturing, you save A TON of cash there. Then paying employees, insert whatever amount you choose here but lets just say 2 bucks a hr and that may be low but is more on the high end I would think, rather than the outlandish sums those american workers want...

I feel ya brother!!