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

[Deleted]

only poor people think rich people should pay more tax than them.

don't be so jealous of people doing better than yourself.

[Kiri]

he is not wrong though - taxes and nothing but a cleaver way to stop revolutions from happening like they did in past - 100-200 years ago such way was not taxing people only sending X % of population to war so they get killed and dont rebel - nowadays taxes do this job - thing is its not the richest people who they stteal from because those in 99 % have their own buisness where its not a problem for them to show very low yearly profit and pay very low profit tax only those in middle who have no way to hide profits.

I beg to differ. There is no theft involved here. The government imposes a tax on every citizen, tailored to how much they can pay, and then uses said money to fund administrative functions, infrastructure, defense, etc. Of course, not everyone living in a country wishes to pay for specific goods, but they cannot be supplied otherwise. Without taxes, who would pay for the police, fire department, military? It is not a new idea, even the Romans had taxes for these very reasons. No one would want to pay for these things, even though they benefit for them - which they cannot easily be exempted from, a prime characteristic of public goods.
I am sure that every single person here arguing against taxes has, at some point, benefited from them, knowingly or not.

Thus, it can hardly be called theft. There is recompense, even if people do not want to acknowledge it. Granted, a point can be made that citizens are basically forced into a contract against their will, that is fair. But ultimately, a point could also be made that by paying taxes, one indirectly agrees to them anyway. One always has a choice not to pay them. Sure, you would go to jail for that, but if you deny buying the product bundle [Government spending] you also refuse to pay for [Protection through the law], so you cannot exactly complain about people coming over and incarcerating you until you pay up. If it fair that said protection comes bundled with a bunch of other things people may not want to buy? Maybe not, that'd be a point of contention. But a rip-off is not theft.

So no, taxes are neither theft, nor nothing but an anti-revolution measure. Which is a weird thought anyway, since a lot of revolutions happened as a direct or indirect results of taxation. Taxes are a vital instrument in most governmental systems. Changing them haphazardly just because one has to pay them - and let's be real here, there is not a single tax rate that would not eventually have people complain about it - is dangerous.

[Cæli]

It's not mandatory, you want it to be mandatory. Also, you're saying that you can't have homeless people but by your own accord it's fine to have people that you keep homeless because they don't care about others.

Depends on the person. If you don't want to find a job that can support you that's on you. If you want to try and make a living by selling rocks you're free to try.

it's mandatory IF we want a sane society. I want a sane society. who doesn't ?

by definition, if the state provide someone a last resort place to live privately, they are not really called "homeless"

there should be no homeless, I don't want to see corpse lying on the street when I go somewhere, and I don't want my children to see that, no one sane want that

[brimdog]

NO.
I believe that people should be injected with Empathy (wisdom), then there would be no need to make anyone do anything.

[I Push Buttons]

But when did the leftist anti American government make the admendment?

It was implemented by conservatives... Progressives were divided at the time, with Teddy Roosevelt breaking from the Republican Party (back when it was progressive, before the flip), allowing Democrats (back when they were conservative) to sweep the elections and enact the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act; which lowered tariffs (which they blamed for rapid inflation) and imposed an income tax.

[Deleted]

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

It should be considered a VERY handsome salary unless you live in some grossly expensive city with insane rents and living costs. Where i live you can live like an absolute king on 100k$ a year.

[Kujako]

It should be considered a VERY handsome salary unless you live in some grossly expensive city with insane rents and living costs. Where i live you can live like an absolute king on 100k$ a year.

Where as where I live, it just barely gets you into home ownership. But it's still a fair amount above the local median and way above the national.

[Eazy]

NOONE really needs 20 million a year to live.

But they earned it fair way. Also your argument is wrong, because everyone need like ~2k€ for food and ~5k€ for apartament to live yearly. Do people who earn ~20k€ give away their 13k€? Don't think so, why it's different situation between them and super stars then?

so what is wrong with taking away 30 million

If you think that taking away ~60% of the income isn't wrong then you're delusional.

Why, If I hear how those sport people or singers, CEO's or whatever earn 50 million a year, all I can think is, if they earned 20 million a year, that is still far, far, far, FAR more than enough to live the most luxurious life you could ever imagine living.

They deserve it, because they earned it. They can invest the money, multiple it, take care of their kids, build them future etc.

[Gamer8585]

You have no idea how tax brackets work do you....?

Also if someone did pay an effective tax rate of 50% than maybe next time they should hire a competent CPA. Effective rate should not go over 15% for an individual in that income range.

[Deleted]

it's mandatory IF we want a sane society. I want a sane society. who doesn't ?

by definition, if the state provide someone a last resort place to live privately, they are not really called "homeless"

there should be no homeless, I don't want to see corpse lying on the street when I go somewhere, and I don't want my children to see that, no one sane want that

In a sane society we shouldn't have people clinging to religions. I'll just move all those people somewhere where they can live privately, without internet or amenities. I'll do the same for people who don't want to donate blood, bone marrow, etc. i mean you can save a lot of lives that way. Same for X because doing Y helps other people.

How you can't see how ridiculous you sound when you support fixing homelessness by forcing the people who don't care to live a life of abject poverty is beyond me. I'll just cut my losses here.

[MasterOfNone]

well I never said I agreed with lazy welfare abusers if that's what you're saying

what do you think ENFORCING people to give 50% of their income would go to? someone who didnt earn it.

- - - Updated - - -

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

i guess the better question, is what are you inferring here? you are saying what do people need with the money they earn. thats their business. you say you arent saying give to welfare, but what is the alternative? 90% taxes? where do you draw the line here. you are making it seem that people who earn their money dont "need" it but are also saying you dont think it should go to welfare. you are not making a lot of sense.

[Cæli]

In a sane society we shouldn't have people clinging to religions. I'll just move all those people somewhere where they can live privately, without internet or amenities. I'll do the same for people who don't want to donate blood, bone marrow, etc. i mean you can save a lot of lives that way. Same for X because doing Y helps other people.

How you can't see how ridiculous you sound when you support fixing homelessness by forcing the people who don't care to live a life of abject poverty is beyond me. I'll just cut my losses here.

why moving and forcing people ? I didn't get your first part of your message

as for the rest, I don't get you either, you agree with me, you just continuously try to argue against me because how the way the forum is presented, but what's the point, what would you want for society ? making people as free as possible and living in a sane and working society ? me too

ridiculous what ? how is that ridiculous to want to prevent persons unwilling to live on the street to do so ? for most person it's not a choice
you don't HAVE to disagree with me at all cost you know

- - - Updated - - -

what do you think ENFORCING people to give 50% of their income would go to? someone who didnt earn it.

- - - Updated - - -



i guess the better question, is what are you inferring here? you are saying what do people need with the money they earn. thats their business. you say you arent saying give to welfare, but what is the alternative? 90% taxes? where do you draw the line here. you are making it seem that people who earn their money dont "need" it but are also saying you dont think it should go to welfare. you are not making a lot of sense.

I invite you to read on the previous posts if that catch your interest, not willing to repeat myself sorry, it can go on forever if another like you come in and quote me, then 2 others quote me etc

[Deleted]

In Socialist Sweden it's like this:

Lets say i earn 3500$ a month.
My employer has to pay my salary plus 1500$ a month to the government in taxes and insurance.

Then I will be taxed roughly 32% of my 3500$ salary. If i make more than the 3500$ additional taxes will be levied on my income.

Then we have Value added tax which is a flat 25% tax on everything we buy. (It was supposed to be temporary but here we are 20 years later).
Then we have additional spot taxes on things such as gasoline, tobacco, alcohol etc.
Then we have taxes to use roads if we own a car and so forth.

The actual amount a worker gets taxed when you factor in everything is quite simply insane. Especially if you earn a somewhat high income then you can get taxed for 50% or more of the salary that goes over a certain amount.

Add to all this a pension system which is extremely poor and will make many old people dependent on social aid even if they have worked their whole lives. Especially if your spouse dies since her pension will go directly to the state and not to the spouse. They also removed tax breaks on private pension saving.

At Least in America you guys can work towards a very good pension and you get to keep all of it.

[AlphaOut]

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.

So if i have more money I should give x amount to those who have less? What's motivating those who have less to make more money then? Since they know the wealthier are just going to take care of them and give them their hard earned money? Should the wealthier help those on poverty? Absolutely. And many do. Hell, Paul Allen just donated like 30 million to poverty in seattle. But as soon as you set an obligated percentage amount based on earned income it creates a whirlwind of trouble, and essentially what would turn into a class of people who get free stuff. Sounds like a glorified welfare program to me.

I will always do my part for the less fortunate, and will always believe that. But as soon as I'm being punished for not being poor is where I draw the line. Nobody has the right to say someone has too much money. Especially if they're self made. Poverty will always exist. Minimizing it is in our best interest. If I'm taxed way more for making a little more, then why would I want to make more? It just doesn't work that way.

And honestly, you'd just see handful of shell companies pop up so they could avoid being taxed so hard.

[MasterOfNone]

why moving and forcing people ? I didn't get your first part of your message

as for the rest, I don't get you either, you agree with me, you just continuously try to argue against me because how the way the forum is presented, but what's the point, what would you want for society ? making people as free as possible and living in a sane and working society ? me too

ridiculous what ? how is that ridiculous to want to prevent persons unwilling to live on the street to do so ? for most person it's not a choice
you don't HAVE to disagree with me at all cost you know

- - - Updated - - -



I invite you to read on the previous posts if that catch your interest, not willing to repeat myself sorry, it can go on forever if another like you come in and quote me, then 2 others quote me etc

that was your FIRST post? what previous? if you have one somewhere in this mult-page thread, thats on you. im not digging through your posts because you had to clarify yourself

[unbound]

We have a debt problem because we have a spending problem... not because we have a too little tax problem.

Sigh.

We have a debt problem because of the stubbornness of thought that it is simply one side or another of an equation.

What I chuckle about with these kinds of arguments is that they generally come from people that want a more business-like attitude brought to government (which is actually a stupid argument, but I understand the sentiments). Yet, there isn't a single business man on the planet that would focus solely on costs...they focus on revenue as well. If you aren't having a conversation about both, you aren't having a useful conversation.

Do we spend too much on programs? In general, we haven't been that bad, but typically the question is about what we want to get out of government programs. Do we want to help the less fortunate in life? Do we want to have good emergency services? Do we want to maintain parks for the citizens to enjoy? These are, for the most part, moral questions that have no business answer, so judging them on a business scale is utterly pointless. What do we want our country to look like? And that is not an easily answered question. And that is also why we consistently have arguments about where and how much we spend...and those are good arguments, we should question those things. But arbitrarily saying, "we spend too much" is simply demonstrating that you've put no thought into what is going on.

As far as revenue goes, we definitely have a problem. Corporations are paying less and less of the tax base, and with the growing wealth inequality, the 1% have paid proportionally less of the tax base leaving us in a bind for money.



This image demonstrates how much corporate taxes have dropped. From about 25% to 30% of the tax base in the 50s down to about 10% of the tax base today. This has shifted the tax burden onto payroll taxes where, many times, the employees are paying additional taxes before even being involved with income taxes.

As for the individual income taxes, the shift there is that while the top 1% has increased their income by about 64% (1979 to 2011), they've only increased their contribution to income taxes by about 41% during that same time. This means that the richest 1%, via both personal income as well as the corporations that they tend to head, are contributing substantially less to the US tax base. Why would anyone think that is fair? And that doesn't even touch the problem of government spending on corporate welfare (basically, giving some of that money back to the very same people and companies that already pay much less than they used to).

[MasterOfNone]

In Socialist Sweden it's like this:

Lets say i earn 3500$ a month.
My employer has to pay my salary plus 1500$ a month to the government in taxes and insurance.

Then I will be taxed roughly 32% of my 3500$ salary. If i make more than the 3500$ additional taxes will be levied on my income.

Then we have Value added tax which is a flat 25% tax on everything we buy. (It was supposed to be temporary but here we are 20 years later).
Then we have additional spot taxes on things such as gasoline, tobacco, alcohol etc.
Then we have taxes to use roads if we own a car and so forth.

The actual amount a worker gets taxed when you factor in everything is quite simply insane. Especially if you earn a somewhat high income then you can get taxed for 50% or more of the salary that goes over a certain amount.

Add to all this a pension system which is extremely poor and will make many old people dependent on social aid even if they have worked their whole lives. Especially if your spouse dies since her pension will go directly to the state and not to the spouse. They also removed tax breaks on private pension saving.

At Least in America you guys can work towards a very good pension and you get to keep all of it.

but i thought all the folks in sweden loved that system?

[Deleted]

Of course not.

[Deleted]

but i thought all the folks in sweden loved that system?

Well, they do. That is, the real version without hyperbole and a falling sky for pure capitalism.

[Cæli]

So if i have more money I should give x amount to those who have less? What's motivating those who have less to make more money then? Since they know the wealthier are just going to take care of them and give them their hard earned money? Should the wealthier help those on poverty? Absolutely. And many do. Hell, Paul Allen just donated like 30 million to poverty in seattle. But as soon as you set an obligated percentage amount based on earned income it creates a whirlwind of trouble, and essentially what would turn into a class of people who get free stuff. Sounds like a glorified welfare program to me.

I will always do my part for the less fortunate, and will always believe that. But as soon as I'm being punished for not being poor is where I draw the line. Nobody has the right to say someone has too much money. Especially if they're self made. Poverty will always exist. Minimizing it is in our best interest. If I'm taxed way more for making a little more, then why would I want to make more? It just doesn't work that way.

no, if you have more money I suggest to help those in need who die of poverty, give to charity, your call, but we can all make the world a better place if we work for it
I'm not talking about lazy welfare abusers

no poverty can be eradicated if we have a high enough technology
yes you can have too much money, you're also free to let other people die because you chose not to help them, chances are you've also been given free moral lessons by your parents

taxes should help our country to work properly, another subject

I believe it works that way