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

[Rotted]

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

Yes, yes it is. I know there's a few conversions between countries to take into account etc, but it is a lot.

I'll give a few examples here,

1) Long story short, my parents went through a disaster none of it their own fault, and we had to evac our house for H&S. At the same point the place both of them worked (one as head manager, one as head chef) closed down because the owners wanted to retire.

We went from a comfortable wage which covered everything we needed including nice holidays (e.g. 3 weeks all inclusive hotel in the Caribbean 5 star) every year to the cheapest rental accommodations we could find, quite often living with other family members for free. In the space of 10 years we moved 15 times, our lowest was living in a caravan. Yes this is all relevant.

We ended up living where we own now, but to afford it a normal paying job wasn't enough. So while renting my folks set up their own company for preservatives, my old man also did private specialist catering contracts solo. At the point they made enough to climb out of debt (only a few thousand) made the rent payments, bills etc. My parents combined income was 3k. 3000 pounds to cloth, feed themselves their 10-14 year old son (yes this was a running trend for 4 or so years). Not to mention christmas, birthdays and the likes.

B) My partner has done 7 years in higher education, going through undergraduate, masters and PhD, she specializes in crop genetics. just as a FYI, she got a 1st in the UG and Distinction in Masters. When she spoke to this company during her masters they said if she completed it and got a phd, they'd be able to offer a stater job with 50k just get back in touch with them. She did a few weeks ago and they offered a starting pay of 21k and no annual increase for 5 years atleast as its only a tech postion. (same as she was offered previously). Instead, shes going into teaching now which starts off at 18, and a increase each year of 1. However her old school is desperate for over qualified teachers (its a 'posh' one) and if she completes the traning, starting with them is 27.

C) I myself, was looking at coming out of uni and apply for each zoo going hoping to get in on some research, but the starting pay is literally 16k a year and will hit 40k when you get to head keeper, estimated 20-30 years down the line. I'm now doing my masters and getting on to a phd involving mainly parasites and some herpetology stuff, but the job start point I get is 30k.

I know countless other people who are all in the same boat barley anything to start with and little progression.

Anyways as for taxing the rich extra? No not at all, its hard money well earned (most of the time). But I do agree a % tax is the best system.

[ati87]

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?

If you believe this way, why?

I certainly do not believe this way. If someone earns 100k a year or more, good for them. They deserve it.

BTW, LOVE the new Trump Tax Plan.

I believe you should be working for free....

And who has ever said that somebody that's making 100k should be paying half in taxes?

[Dezerte]

Taxes fund the costs of maintaining a society that allows people to flourish. Whether it's infrastructure, healthy/happy/educated workforce, law enforcement etc... the richer people tend to benefit (or are willing/able to pay more for) a lot more from these things.

[Deleted]

Just slap a 10% tax on everything, problem solved

[Sliske]

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?

Two ways to look at it:

1. The person who worked harder, went through school and got a good job should be rewarded for putting in the extra effort by having more disposable income, over the person who had a kid when they were 16, spends most of their money on alcohol and cigarettes and works part time at Walmart.

If working hard and being a responsible adult is nullified by heavy taxing, why bother? Why not just fuck about and drink all day, too?

2. The person who 'worked hard' might've just had that job handed to him by family. He probably got a house bought for him too, and a car.

(A good example here is my two uncles and my dad. All 3 grew up in the same household of course, all three dropped out of school and became welders. Well, one of them just happened to hook up with a girl that had rich parents who were just about to die. Long story short, that uncle got a £700,000 house with probably around 10 acres of land in the country for free. All of the money he would've had to pay on rent or even buying a house, was instantly gone. That guy now owns a business, dispite working the exact same hours as my dad and my other uncle, in the exact same factory for the exact same duration.)

The issue with this discussion is that people are looking for a universal solution to a problem that doesn't have a universal solution. You will always find a group of people who are getting taxed more or less than they should.

[Cæli]

Now it starts to be unnecessary? who are you to want ot take my money and redistribute it? that's like the most stupid thing I've heard lately.

"above 250k... uncessary"

I know it's long but try reading previous posts before : P don't deny the fact that some people are dying because of poverty. I'm someone who sees persons wasting luxury food while some others are dying of famine. who am I ? ah.

[Deleted]

punishing rich people for being rich is ridiculous.

only poor people think that richer people should have to pay more tax.

[Cæli]

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



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.

yes it's my problem and should be everyones that some people willfully chose to keep their money instead of at least trying to save people who die of poverty, we'll get nowhere as a society if it keeps happening. you seem like a young person, but try to open your eyes on what happens. everyone is not a lazy useless welfare abuser, everyone does not live in a country filled with possibilities to get wealth that can't think of wealth as a way to survive, and instead think just on his country standards. abysmal eh ? tell that to this mother that has a dying children that she can't feed

- - - Updated - - -

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.

you can define it. as long as there's some people dying of poverty, then it means someone elsewhere in the world have too much. try thinking above the economy concept. we're a society and it should go well for us to evolve properly.

[Deleted]

some of you are saying Hell Yeah - tax the rich... but what if you spent 25+ years of your life working your butt off and eventually getting up there on decent money through hard work, sacrifice etc, would you then be happy to pay out 50% or more tax over a certain buffer, no, you'd be furious !

[Cæli]

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.

like I said already, I never said giving free money to lazy ass welfare abusers that doesn't want to contribute. people must have the fear to lose something if they don't contribute. it just shouldn't be life. they should fear to lose their home, their children, respect, the internet, their personal belongings, not their life.

[Deleted]

Just slap a 10% tax on everything, problem solved

A flat tax never solved anything.

[Eazy]

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.

Why it should be more for people who earn more? I understand raising it up to some point, but 55% is too big difference.

[Tomservo]

I had no idea there were this many economists on this forum. Impressive.

[Deleted]

Why it should be more for people who earn more? I understand raising it up to some point, but 55% is too big difference.

Because 5% can be a lot of money for the poorest, while 60% can easily be missed by the richest.

[Karfal]

like I said already, I never said giving free money to lazy ass welfare abusers that doesn't want to contribute. people must have the fear to lose something if they don't contribute. it just shouldn't be life. they should fear to lose their home, their children, respect, the internet, their personal belongings, not their life.

But yet that's the problem. Most people abuse the system. You realize in Seattle where worthless fucks begged for 15 bucks an hour. They are fighting to get less hours SO THEY CAN REMAIN ON WELFARE. You don't see a problem with that?

[Cæli]

But yet that's the problem. Most people abuse the system. You realize in Seattle where worthless fucks begged for 15 bucks an hour. They are fighting to get less hours SO THEY CAN REMAIN ON WELFARE. You don't see a problem with that?

obviously that's a problem (and in my opinion an education problem) but "the" problem, you think they're the reason why some people are dying of poverty elsewhere in the world ?

[Deleted]

Why it should be more for people who earn more? I understand raising it up to some point, but 55% is too big difference.

Because they are benefiting more from everything that is our society. The only reason anyone can make large amounts of money is because of things like roads, health care, security, social security, the whole infra structure, ect.
Our whole society is made around money, you need a certain amount of it if you want to survive. Once you have reached this amount the rest of this money is only for leisure. Why should people who didn't get lucky in our society and barely scrape by have to pay the same amount of tax as someone who has an abundance? Even when these rich people are having much more benefit from everything we collectively pay for?

55% in all reality isn't that much, specially if you look at it historically as during the 50's and 60's in America's "good ol days" the top income tax was over 90%. And this is the top bracket, this means that this person went through all other brackets first. So they paid x amount of tax over their first 10.000 then a bit more over the next 10.000 just like everyone else.

[Glorious Leader]

I believe jaylock and only jaylock should pay 99% on every dollar above one million he will never make

[ati87]

But yet that's the problem. Most people abuse the system. You realize in Seattle where worthless fucks begged for 15 bucks an hour. They are fighting to get less hours SO THEY CAN REMAIN ON WELFARE. You don't see a problem with that?

Or they didn't want welfare and asked for a minimum wage that can actually support basic living?

I see allot of assumptions without backing any shit up, when I was in college and I was written my thesis the teacher told me that any claim you make needs to be backed up by research.

If I claim the sky is purple I need to show evidence

Also I can find abusers in every aspect of society, hell we have a country (Switzerland) who does nothing help those rich ass-holes avoiding taxes. Then It was to be a calculation will you spend more money on trying to find a certain group of abusers or will you go to the big shark

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...esting-program

[Deleted]

like I said already, I never said giving free money to lazy ass welfare abusers that doesn't want to contribute. people must have the fear to lose something if they don't contribute. it just shouldn't be life. they should fear to lose their home, their children, respect, the internet, their personal belongings, not their life.

It doesn't matter what you want to do with the money. You could want the excess so you could build your own replica of a random stray cat. If there's no incentive for people to go above and beyond they wont. And that will lead to all the progress that's being done at the moment slowing down to a crawl. If i can live just as well by working 40h a week doing fuck all you can be sure that i won't be doing 80h of hard work trying to invent something cool.