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

[Linkedblade]

Note: the poverty line for a single individual is $12k, the single standard deduction would be $12,700.

[Wycked]

Here's a tax plan, tax everyone who makes under 50k nothing, tax 50-250k @ 10% , 250k-999k @ 25%, everything over 1 mil @ 50% and everything over 10 mil @ 75%. We the 300million that make under 250k annually would benefit. Here's a crazy idea, vote to support your own interest, not following the dream that one day you'll have a 7 figure salary. I firmly believe anyone making over 10 mil a year is doing so by paying people below them an amount that is severely disproportional to their contribution and I have no problem shafting them with taxes for doing that and helping out the people they're screwing over.

[Linkedblade]

Here's a tax plan, tax everyone who makes under 50k nothing, tax 50-250k @ 10% , 250k-999k @ 25%, everything over 1 mil @ 50% and everything over 10 mil @ 75%. We the 300million that make under 250k annually would benefit. Here's a crazy idea, vote to support your own interest, not following the dream that one day you'll have a 7 figure salary. I firmly believe anyone making over 10 mil a year is doing so by paying people below them an amount that is severely disproportional to their contribution and I have no problem shafting them with taxes for doing that and helping out the people they're screwing over.

And anyone with a business moves out of the country.

[Eazy]

Ya man! We have a huge debt problem. But lowering taxes with no way to fund it is a great way to fix everything! /s

Stealing more money from people would definitely fix economics. /s

Where do these people come from, lol.

[Linkedblade]

I was responding to a post that mentioned how entitlements take up 60% of the budget, with the implication that they somehow could be cut which they cannot be.

My point was people are complaining about welfare spending and those programs aren't a part of welfare

[Eazy]

well 100k a year is not that huge
above 250k, now it start to be unnecessary

like, what will you do of all that money anyway ?

It's not your problem. It's their money, they can do whatever they want with them.

some other could benefit more from it, like if you manage to get too much money and you keep it, it WILL hurt the economy and indirectly the life of other people

Good thinking. Someone who earns more money than other people should give them. /s
Arguments like "someone could benefit more from it" is so abysmal that I don't even know where to start...

We should give sports car to the racers, because they'll benefit more from it.
We should give our items for the TOP mythic players, because they'll benefit more from it.
etc etc



@Jaylock good job at baiting all these kind of people.

[Ulmita]

Why does government need so much money? And the income tax isn't the only form of revenue for the government

Roads, bridges, hospitals, public services, etc

And you're right, it isn't the only form of revenue, but taxing people / companies is their biggest revenue source.

[Kolbjorn]

Trickle down is stupid and takes advantage of the same sort of people that would abuse their credit card, because they expect to earn more money by the time it's due.

Not exactly. Trickle down is based on an assumption that 'rich' people will invest what they don't pay in taxes, but that isn't true in the real world. If there is an exploitable market, someone will generate a business plan to demonstrate it, and if they can't self-fund, will get funding from either VCs, or a loan from a bank to create a business to capture that market*. Banks are currently holding unprecedented amounts of cash that they'd normally have lent out simply because there aren't sufficient reasonable investment available to put the cash.

Markets require people having money to buy your stuff.

So lets look at an example. Pretend you own Hostess, and you want to sell 10 more boxes of Twinkies in New Jersey, and the population is 20 people. In Scenario A, we cut Chris Christie's taxes by $20. In Scenario B, we cut everyone's tax by $1. In which scenario are you more likely to sell 10 more boxes of Twinkies? I mean, you might sell like 5 boxes to Chris Christie... but probably not 10. So if you're Hostess, you're actually better off with Chris Christie paying a higher rate than the random plebs that will buy your Twinkies. Scenario A is "trickle down." Scenario B is better for most consumer companies.

Why do 'rich' people/corporations generally resist 'progressive' taxation when it actually hurts them in the long run (by damaging the market's ability to buy stuff)? It's fairly simple:

1) Our governments behavior is crazy random/chaotic, due to it having multiple personalities that flip-flop on a 4-8ish year cycle.

2) In an unpredictable environment, you're best off capturing as much profit as possible as soon as possible, at the expense of later years, as you calculate the NPV of your potential earnings.


(* And even if you can self fund, you might get a loan anyways, and shift some of that risk to the bank via incorporating and shielding your personal cash from bankruptcy.)

[Wycked]

And anyone with a business moves out of the country.

Cool, they still pay taxes on any income they make if they're a citizen / do any business here.

- - - Updated - - -

Rework the numbers if you like, the general principle is tax the rich more and tax the poor less. A less drastic approach would be to cap itemizations @ a few 100k per year so the rich actually have to pay taxes...

by doing just that you could lop off 10% from the bottom 3 brackets and still have the same budget.

[Linkedblade]

Roads, bridges, hospitals, public services, etc

And you're right, it isn't the only form of revenue, but taxing people / companies is their biggest revenue source.

We'd be better off if those were left in the private sector.

[Stelio Kontos]

We'd be better off if those were left in the private sector.

If you leave roads and bridges to the private sector then rural communities will suffer infrastructure problems because there's little profit in improving infrastructure in lightly populated areas.

[Deleted]

Why would the us care about debt, everything is traded in dollars remember?

As long as you pay a gazillion trillion on the military to bomb everyone that wants to swap to a gold currency or w/e then youre fine!

[Deleted]

Guys dont get baited it is Jaylock, he even changed his Profile picture to show he does most of this to inflame people.

But i think it is fair, I live in denmark or Base tax is 45%, and only gets higher from there. I love that you use 50% as it is a reaility for base tax in America but it wont. but hey i dont mind it, taxes are not your enemy it is your friend it help people.

[AlphaOut]

well 100k a year is not that huge
above 250k, now it start to be unnecessary

like, what will you do of all that money anyway ? some other could benefit more from it, like if you manage to get too much money and you keep it, it WILL hurt the economy and indirectly the life of other people

Invest it? Putting it in a trust? There are several options. Just because a certain amount of money is a lot for one person doesn't mean it's the same for another. You can't really define " too much money" because if it's invested or even used for purchases it's still flowing through the economy in one way or another.

[Stelio Kontos]

100k doesn't go nearly as far as some folks assume it does.

[AlphaOut]

Here's a tax plan, tax everyone who makes under 50k nothing, tax 50-250k @ 10% , 250k-999k @ 25%, everything over 1 mil @ 50% and everything over 10 mil @ 75%. We the 300million that make under 250k annually would benefit. Here's a crazy idea, vote to support your own interest, not following the dream that one day you'll have a 7 figure salary. I firmly believe anyone making over 10 mil a year is doing so by paying people below them an amount that is severely disproportional to their contribution and I have no problem shafting them with taxes for doing that and helping out the people they're screwing over.

Not only are you taking an obscene amount of money from higher class people, none of then would work in the US. If they did work in the US they'd run shell companies on the side to establish more write offs.

- - - Updated - - -

I was taxed 40k last year and thought it was bs. I work my W-4 to have the least amount taken out annually, without owing anything.

[Karfal]

You could run a whole other USA on just the defense budget.

On 16% percent of the budget? No the lazy people might need to get a job. Can't do that.

- - - Updated - - -

If you leave roads and bridges to the private sector then rural communities will suffer infrastructure problems because there's little profit in improving infrastructure in lightly populated areas.

That's why the compromise should be that the state funds rural areas. Which get much less traffic and maintenance.

[Deleted]

yeah well given the reality that people are dying of poverty there is morals to respect so that our future as a species is guaranteed

You do realize that would fuck with a lot of things right? If there's a cutoff point what happens is that people won't try to go above that cutoff point. If i can make X and there's no incentive to do more a lot of people will stop. That includes things where a lot of money is made like tech, medicine, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Guess what happens when there's diminishing returns on what you can gain? People go fuck it, not worth wasting my life so i can barely make a profit. At that point companies stop growing and unemployment goes up as population grows.

[Kiri]

Stealing more money from people would definitely fix economics. /s

Where do these people come from, lol.

The moment you refer to taxes as stealing money, you already lose @Economics. The only way to battle negative externalities is to have an authority overseeing it - which costs money. I doubt there are any real economists that are against taxes of any kind. An argument can be made that, currently, the US is near the local maximum of that laffer curve, but that'd need more data. If it is there, then higher taxes would be detrimental. If the tax rate is not there yet, then an increase would be beneficial. So yes, increasing taxes can 'fix' an economy - and so can lowering them. That's what economists say.

[Deleted]

I do. Tax should be on a moving scale. It starts at 5% for the less fortunate and scales up to 60% for the rich.