You need to update the original post or the title. It doesn't say whether Yes means, "Yes, most Americans feel that way," "Yes, I fee they don't pay enough," "Yes, I believe they do pay enough," etc.
My appologies. For some reason they isn't showing on my screen. I'll try reloading it.
I think they pay too little. If you make say $500,000 a year (which is small for a lot of "rich" folk) but only pay $100,000, that is $400,000 a year. With that money 20 families could be fed and given a home for that entire year. Instead they're trying to tax the poor even MORE.
While I agree that if you have earned that extra truckload of money you have earned it the idea of taxing the people who absolutely cannot pay or afford it in order to reduce taxes on the people who could afford it without even missing the money, I just can't fathom who would think that's a good idea other than someone who's "rich" and benefits from it.
Let me be clear.
I vote yes ONLY because of the rich who get paid through capital gains. That shit needs to be taxed as income.
You realize that non-americans are going to skew this poll horribly, right?
You mean ordinary income, right? It's already taxed as income, just capital gains income.
Anyway, there are plenty of good reasons why capital gains tax should be lower than ordinary income since there's inherent risk associated with investments that produce capital gains income and, in theory, these investments create jobs.
As to the original post:
I'm hardly surprised that most of the 90% think the remaining 10% should pay more taxes
---------- Post added 2012-08-28 at 04:56 PM ----------
What does this mean? How is tax rated related to the economy? I mean, it is, but the correlation I think you're suggesting (tax more for a better economy?) isn't how it pans out in reality.
Last edited by Drakain; 2012-08-28 at 04:57 PM.
Rich people do actually have a higher rate, so those that are responsible and care about their fellow humans/country will be paying more.
However, the problem is that there are so many potential loopholes for the rich to find and abuse that they end up paying far far less than poor people. Take Romney for example, why do you think he won't release his tax info? Probably because he has dodged most if not all of his taxes.
He makes more money per minute than I make per year, and yet I have probably paid more taxes than him.
We shouldn't force the rich to pay more taxes.
Rather, we should make taxes "optional" by a luxury tax. Luxury cars, flat screen TVs, cigarettes, alcohol, and other expensive luxury items should be taxed to crap. Why? So the people who are really struggling to get by don't have to suffer, and people who have a lot of disposable income can still buy the luxuries they like the most (and pay taxes by choice). If a middle-class family wants to save up some money for a house, all they have to do is cut back on luxuries. If you're absolutely rich and like to buy expensive, needless things, then you pay much more for them.
It beats taxing income, which is all kinds of messed up.
3 easy steps to start fixing the American political system:
1. Campaign finance reform, including a reversal of citizen's united
2. Restore the top marginal tax rates to 1980s levels
3. Modify capital gains tax rate to change relative to the amount of income from capital gains vs. ordinary income
Last edited by Beavis; 2012-08-28 at 05:09 PM.
The problem is, the richer a person, the more likely he/she is going to try and avoid paying taxes.
So while I don't necessarily think they need a higher tax-rate (they probably do in the US), they need to stop dodging taxes and pay up.
Well, technically that's not true. The top bracket is taxed at anywhere from 22% or 28% depending on how they file for ordinary income, which is substantially lower than the highest tax bracket which falls somewhere in the middles class. So there's that.
The very poor pay 16% of their income, but the reality is that any tax liability they might have is frequently reduced to zero by various tax credits. In fact, most people in the lower bracket actually make money filing their taxes through credits like EIC and Additional Child Tax credit. Ironically, you don't need to be a citizen to derive the benefit from these programs, either.
Similarly, it's not exactly fair to say the poor pay more - even ignoring the fact that at least some of them fall into the lower tax bracket - because even if are somehow not having their tax reduced to nothing from various programs, the fact remains that the lions share of revenue from individual tax returns is coming from the top 10%, so even if the top 10% tax rate is lower, they're still paying substantially more on a percapita basis - which is what you'd expect.
The argument is that the wealthy don't pay in proportion of the wealth they control. This is problematic because now we're talking about two different things: wealth and income. It's not a distinction for 90% of tax payers because their wealth is closely tied to their income, but that's not how it is for the very wealthy.
Last edited by Drakain; 2012-08-28 at 05:11 PM.
Everyone should pay lower taxes.
A lot of people are butthurt that they have less money than someone else
I think the whole tax rates thing is slightly misconstrued. Yes, the rich more often than not paying a higher amount of taxes and even a higher rate than the lower 50% of the US. The main problem so many of us have is that the taxes we pay are far, far more detrimental to our well being than the taxes the rich pay. Half this country lives paycheck to paycheck, the rich don't. The payroll, federal, and state taxes we have deducted every week have a much, much greater impact on our livable wages. Sure the rich might be paying a similar wage, but when the amount of money you make is so much higher your livability is far less impacted unless you are just absolutely irresponsible with your spending. Aside from that the argument is about capital gains which should be taxed far more heavily than they are now. The only other argument I can make in support of higher taxes on the wealthy is that there is a very, very distinctive growth pattern in this country that ties directly with their higher taxes. Post-WW2 the tax rates were in excess of 75% on the super rich. That forced them to reinvest in their businesses rather than taking the money out as salary. That reinvestment creates jobs and creates GDP growth.
---------- Post added 2012-08-28 at 01:33 PM ----------
That would be fine too. That would require us spending less on "defense" though which simply is not going to ever happen with a significant amount of Republicans (or Democrats who cling to defense spending) in Washington. We could absolutely fund tax cuts for everyone if we would stop spending more on defense than every other major power combined. But it is a total pipedream. Romney/Ryan wants to increase defense spending while completely draining every other system in Washington.
MMO-C nightly hockey chat http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=#mmoc-hockey