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

[sweatshopkids]

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

In a lump sum, maybe. In a year, no.

[A dot Ham]

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.

In costly Bay Area, even six-figure salaries are considered ‘low income’

[Kujako]

In a lump sum, maybe. In a year, no.

100k a year puts you in the top 24th percentile. Explain how that isn't a lot?

[Deleted]

Nice deflection. As someone who is both a small business owner and an employee i think i know how the Swedish system works better than some random German guy. Also i DARE any Swede here to refute my tax example.

Oh yes please tell me other horror stories from Sweden. Next time it should be all about "what happened in sweden", mkay?

Arent there already enough threads about trumps dearest negative example?

And isnt it enough with sweden as propaganda target?

What if you spare these forums with your right wing bullshit?

[Taneras]

100k a year puts you in the top 24th percentile. Explain how that isn't a lot?

That's a very misleading statistic. Maybe its a married couple where both work, even taking over time if they can, compared to a single earner household who's spouse doesn't work.

Also, go live in NYC and tell me how far 100k gets you.

Too many things to consider.

[Kujako]

That's a very misleading statistic. Maybe its a married couple where both work, even taking over time if they can, compared to a single earner household who's spouse doesn't work.

Also, go live in NYC and tell me how far 100k gets you.

Too many things to consider.

True, the 24th percentile is for a single earner. For a household, it is far higher. But even at 24%, that's still a lot.

[Deleted]

Oh yes please tell me other horror stories from Sweden. Next time it should be all about "what happened in sweden", mkay?

Arent there already enough threads about trumps dearest negative example?

And isnt it enough with sweden as propaganda target?

What if you spare these forums with your right wing bullshit?

Spare us your cultural Marxist propaganda.

[Boricha]

If that tax rate is going into infrastructure, universal healthcare, education, and basic income, then sure.

[Deleted]

If that tax rate is going into infrastructure, universal healthcare, education, and basic income, then sure.

It probably will minus basic income and plus all kind of insane liberal projects were billions will get wasted. Ultimately they will decide to raise taxes more and more and more.

[Jaylock]

Ahh yes. That wonderful delusion. Sure, they can. Truth of the matter however is that they never do. Lower the taxes on them and they will simply have their offshore bank account cake, and eat their lowered taxes at home cake too, while simply pocketing even more money thanks to the tax breaks.

How do YOU KNOW that they never do? I can guarantee that businesses ALL THE TIME are reinvesting in their business if they have the money to do so. I worked for a publicaly traded fortune 500 company in the finance division. I saw how the money was used. I saw the tax implications of the company and how tax pressure limited our retained earnings. We had desires to hire more employees and grow segments of our business, but couldn't do everything we wanted to do DUE DIRECTLY TO HAVING TO PAY TAXES.

I love how its always the left's argument that all businesses are evil and only look out for the executives. Why do you believe that fucking bullshit story? The democrats and the leftist media has blinded you to think that way, and its quite sad.

- - - Updated - - -

In costly Bay Area, even six-figure salaries are considered ‘low income’

Yes it absolutely has a lot to do with where you live and work.

But democrats don't want you to see or consider that. They just want you to be upset that someone is making 100k+ a year and for you to believe that they must "pay their fair share" and tax them at a ridiculous rate.

Id say someone making 100k a year in San Francisco is worse off than someone making 50k in Phoenix, because that 100k a year person is in a higher tax bracket and the cost of living is 3 times as much as in Phoenix.

Two words:

Flat Tax.

[MasterOfNone]

Your "version" is a horror version created for american readers by the right wing filter bubbles on social media, nothing more, nothing less.

- - - Updated - - -



I dont see any need for liberalism to care about racist bigortry.

so all 20% of those people are racist bigots? are you one of those people that think just because someone doesnt vote for who you want, it makes them racist or a bigot?

[Deleted]

It probably will minus basic income and plus all kind of insane liberal projects were billions will get wasted. Ultimately they will decide to raise taxes more and more and more.

Thats just your horror scenario.

Just stop it. You wont succeed.

- - - Updated - - -

so all 20% of those people are racist bigots? are you one of those people that think just because someone doesnt vote for who you want, it makes them racist or a bigot?

No? Do you love to create fallacies?

[God Save The King]

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. My tax return says otherwise.

I mean there will naturally be deviations, but 21k is all the federal government will ever take from someone making 100k. The average effective tax rate for 100k is closer to 15% (naturally on average).

[MasterOfNone]

Thats just your horror scenario.

Just stop it. You wont succeed.

- - - Updated - - -



No? Do you love to create fallacies?

you said why should liberalism care about racist bigots when we were discussing the 20% that you called right wing. that is you inferring or making a broad statement that they are racist bigots...what fallacy did i create?

[Huulo]

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?

The rich are being taxed at a much lower rate than you think. The way the brackets working is that every dollar you make over the threshold is taxed at a certain rate. So if brackets are 15% for people under 50k and 20% for people over 50k, a person making 60k would pay 15% of the first 50k they made, and 20% on the next 10k. That way no one is penalized for making more.

However, the reality is that high earners often don't pay anywhere near the amount they're supposed to. Because they can classify a most of their income as "capital gains," and then pay a lower rate. So in the real world, a family bringing in 85k a year might pay around 30% total income in taxes, and someone making 10-20 million a year might pay around 14-15%. And if you're Donald Trump, you might not have to pay anything at all.

Also keep in mind, if the money goes to lower earners, say in the form of food stamps, it's been proven more effective to stimulate the economy, because they have to spend it right away. If the rich get a tax cut, that doesn't help the economy as much per dollar invested.

[Klaiden Potugye]

The bigger the gap between rich and poor, the less upward mobility you find. Not everybody is able to make the "investment" to become a doctor, laywer, ect. Education has always had an incredibly high opportunity cost. Even if you could hypothetically get the tuition money and book money you need, it can be very hard to invest enough time to adequately study while also working to afford to feed yourself. Yes, you can certainly do it, and many do, but it's not hard to imagine that people benefiting from some degree of nepotism will not only do better in school because of having more free time ,but afterwards in securing a job.

There's also the fact that we will always need people to work the midnight shift and McDonald's or people to make your coffee and stock the shelves at Walmart. Do I think a ditch digger should get paid as much as the CEO of the construction company? Of course not. But to say that the ditch digger could advance if only he had more ambition and blah blah blah bootstraps is silly.

It's the beauty of the system, you do have an opportunity. If you ain't taking this opportunity, it's your own fault.

[Deleted]

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

You don't need 50 mill a year to do any of that, not even remotely close. You don't even need 20mill to do that... heck most people in this world do fine with 20.000 a year or less. If you think it makes any difference if you make 20 mill or 50 mill a year, YOU are the dilusional one.

[Klaiden Potugye]

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

As far as I remember the story went like this: The wage was increased, which made a lot of people ineligible for certain benefits, thus this people requested (or politely asked) to work less hours, so the benefits will remain.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need 50 mill a year to do any of that, not even remotely close. You don't even need 20mill to do that... heck most people in this world do fine with 20.000 a year or less. If you think it makes any difference if you make 20 mill or 50 mill a year, YOU are the dilusional one.

We aren't talking about world. We were talking about US of A. And with 20K a year you can only hope that there are enough people who make 20 million who can pay for your food and flat. So you can drive your Lexus. Real thing.

[Felya]

We aren't talking about world. We were talking about US of A. And with 20K a year you can only hope that there are enough people who make 20 million who can pay for your food and flat. So you can drive your Lexus. Real thing.

No, people who make 20k a year do not drive a Lexus. It's not a real thing, but changing a Lincoln to a Lexus, in Reagan's "welfare queen". It wasn't real then, it's not real now. It's a faux representation of poor people, so you can easier denigrate them.

By the way, as a NYer, you pay a hell of a lot in federal taxes, than you receive back. So, while you bitch about 20k in a Lexus, the amount you lose in taxes to the same people who propagate the idea of a welfare queen, can afford a Lexus to quite a few NYers. This tax plan doesn't change that.

[Kolbjorn]

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

Nah. I mean, if poor people can afford an XBox and not be rioting in the street when I'm driving somewhere, and lower taxes lets them have that basic luxury, I'm totally ok with that. Maybe I'm weird, but I don't really like driving through riots.

I get a ton more benefit for my higher taxes than a random poor person.

Talk to some of your colleagues from India to hear about random stuff they had to do with chunks of their income at home... places without basic social services aren't particularly great places to live.