How much do you feel someone making over 1 Million dollars a year should be taxed?

[Ryonas]

The average S&P 500 CEO makes 280 times what I make.

The average S&P 500 CEO DOES NOT work 280 times harder than I do.

The average S&P 500 CEO does not NEED to keep as large a percentage of his/her salary to survive AND live in ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA luxury.

I need EVERY SINGLE PENNY of my salary just to barely survive and put a pittance away for retirement in the hopes that I won't have to live on generic cat food when I finally get to retire when I'm about 75 years old. (If the disgusting Republicans don't just do away with Social Security altogether between now and then, which they most likely WILL.)

The average S&P 500 CEO should pay a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH larger percentage of his/her salary in taxes to support the society that makes him/her OBSCENELY, UNJUSTIFIABLY wealthy.

Wealth does NOTHING for society just sitting in a millionaire's money hoard. Wealth only helps society when it is in the hands of the middle/lower classes.

The obscenely wealthy MUST be taxed at a higher rate if we are ever to make the United States a place worth living again.

[Torto]

The average S&P 500 CEO makes 280 times what I make.

The average S&P 500 CEO DOES NOT work 280 times harder than I do.

The average S&P 500 CEO does not NEED to keep as large a percentage of his/her salary to survive AND live in ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA, ULTRA luxury.

I need EVERY SINGLE PENNY of my salary just to barely survive and put a pittance away for retirement in the hopes that I won't have to live on generic cat food when I finally get to retire when I'm about 75 years old. (If the disgusting Republicans don't just do away with Social Security altogether between now and then, which they most likely WILL.)

The average S&P 500 CEO should pay a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH larger percentage of his/her salary in taxes to support the society that makes him/her OBSCENELY, UNJUSTIFIABLY wealthy.

Wealth does NOTHING for society just sitting in a millionaire's money hoard. Wealth only helps society when it is in the hands of the middle/lower classes.

The obscenely wealthy MUST be taxed at a higher rate if we are ever to make the United States a place worth living again.

Are you aware comrade, that an S&P CEO doesn't write his own salary? That his remuneration is allocated to him by shareholders? He is paid what shareholders think he is worth, basically you are saying they are villains for taking the salary package that is offered to them.

But still, if you don't like capitalism I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

[javierdsv]

Flat taxes are stupid and anyone who thinks otherwise is the same.

Why hello, thank you for the compliment.

It's just money to feed the government anyway.

[Shadowater]

You're only going to get taxed on your earnings, reinvesting money would lower your earnings and not be taxable. That's also why you have insurance for all the shit you're talking about.

You're just babbling about nonsense.

I guess it's hard to talk about this subject because we have different systems in different countries.
And I don't know how it works in your country.

[Themius]

Why hello, thank you for the compliment.

It's just money to feed the government anyway.

A 20% tax on a person making 350 a week is more significant than a 20% tax on a person making 13000 a week.

At the end of the month person A will have 1120 out of 1400 while person b will have 41600/52000. Consider that with this amount of money person A will not have disposable income while person B will. Person B can deposit that money into investment accounts and continue to make more money while person A will likely have to spend all that money and then some in debt just to get by and survive. Unless person A decides to signup for government assistance to make ends meet because person B who runs the company doesn't want to pay person A a livable wage and is a-okay with the government subsidizing his workers so person B can get a 20% bump next year.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I asked if you were a communist because by looking at your replies it does sound alot like you want communism.
You seem to be against private companies and people becoming rich.

And I assume that person made a comment because you are just being very rude even though I'm just trying to have a respectful discussion.

Also it seems like you are just arguing from emotions. I live in sweden and I am very much affected by what is happening. I know what is happening and also some of what have caused it. Telling me that I am wrong about my own country is silly, do you even know the language? If not then you certainly don't have all the information.

They are in fact creating jobs if they are creating a business that need to hire people. They do not have to create the business and instead become a farmer and thus no jobs have been created. If you start a business and hire people you have created jobs, it's that simple, they weren't forced to do it.
If I start a company and I need 5 people to help me, then I have created 5 more jobs.
Do you understand?

I am not a communist, and I am not saying that because I care what you or anybody else things either way. That doesn't mean however I don't believe in balance, human beings have to eat, they need medicine, they need to be able to provide for themselves, and that is irregardless to what you or I think about everyone. That can't happen if everyone is soo free, they are able to destroy and ruin this planet for everyone.

I don't need to know how to speak your language, and as for you being Swedish and having a perspective I don't know I would cede that, but that doesn't mean I know what you say is true for sure, and it doesn't mean I am ignorant of Sweden or the massive amounts of BULLSHIT especially spewed around here by typically right with white supremacist or (Nationalist) as they try to coin themselves. Taking in refugees isn't weak, and that has nothing to do with Sweden's economic issues.

Maybe taking on more obligations than Sweden can handle could be, but this right here is about taxation, and as I said before, Sweden Does work, proven by the fact you have plenty trying to arrive at your doorstep, because as harsh as you think your world is, it's a 100times worse in other places, through the fault of none other than the very same types that mismanage and exploit others in the U.S, Canada, Sweden, anywhere else.

I am not a communist, I also don't believe in some sort of utopist idea.

I do know what works and doesn't through experiences, which is why balance is important, even if it comes at the expense of cluing some into reality. There is such a thing as too much wealth or wasted wealth when that money as it does represents resources every human being relies on.

[Detritivores]

I also think if you combine flat-tax with lower business tax rates then the most wealthy won't feel the need to use offshore bank account to dodge as much as possible which in-turn would feed back into our own economy.

I'm very curious why you think these vultures would be satisfied with onshore profits, regardless of the situation. No matter the rate on shore, the tax dodging rate is 0% and dammit it all if we don't glorify this kind of fuckery.

[Themius]

expecting the rich to pay their fair share isn't "hating" them, hell with the various tax loopholes the wealthy often pay less taxes by percentage of total income when counting capital gains as normal income.

I do what I can to pay less taxes, if something happened and I suddenly were paying a more proper amount I wouldn't freak out... I'd still get by just fine. Point is no one "wants" to pay taxes. I do want I can to minimize this but I'm not going to bitch about it. "Oh no my generous earnings now slightly less generous but... really means nothing tangible to me"

- - - Updated - - -

I'm very curious why you think these vultures would be satisfied with onshore profits, regardless of the situation. No matter the rate on shore, the tax dodging rate is 0% and dammit it all if we don't glorify this kind of fuckery.

He believe they'll do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Which is just stupid.

And if those two were combined you'd have to then wonder how the fuck are we funding the government?

[Ryonas]

basically you are saying they are villains for taking the salary package that is offered to them.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything like that. What I AM saying is that we need to change our tax laws to better serve our society. To have a SINGLE PERSON homeless or hungry in the richest nation on Earth is absolutely unacceptable. Period.

[Themius]

Funny, I don't remember saying anything like that. What I AM saying is that we need to change our tax laws to better serve our society. To have a SINGLE PERSON homeless or hungry in the richest nation on Earth is absolutely unacceptable. Period.

We make no sense with taxes.

We pay 17% of GDP for healthcare because we don't want to tax everyone to make overall taxes lower for healthcare and pay 10%-12% like every other country.

[NihilSustinet]

I think salary should be capped. i dont know where, but def under a million a year. everything above the cap would be taxed 100% (including capitol gains).

[Reverb256]

Just steal all their money.

-Communists

[therealbowser]

The same percentage as most people. I could see lowering/eliminating taxes for people so poor that they can't get by and are living off of food stamps, but there's no reason for someone who makes more money to be forced to pay more of it for income tax.

They'll already be taxed on other things such as their property, their purchases, and so on. Their income specifically should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

I think salary should be capped. i dont know where, but def under a million a year. everything above the cap would be taxed 100% (including capitol gains).

I don't think you understand how capitalism works.

[Spiffums]

I think income tax should be a flat rate but luxury items should have a huge taxation on them. What is luxury items i dont really have a great definition but i would say any vehicle over a certain amount/certain emission amount, non essential travel/cruises, any phone over a certain price, etc, etc. This would maybe help the poorer people reconsider spending foolishly and wouldnt stop the rich but they would just pay more taxation on anything excessive.

Dont punish people for being successful making money, punish them for over consuming.

flat 10%. Maybe Government should just learn it's place.

[Rasulis]

If every person making 20k got a better job, there'd be a lot of middle aged people bitching about how no one is working the register or helping them pick something out. It's also a pipe dream and you'd need to ignore reality if you think "just git a better jobs, oh em geeeze" is a solution to everything financial. Also, ex cons dont tend to get the middle class jobs since, ya know, people dont like to employ felons. Noww you've got felons without jobs or barely making it. Yeah, that's a plus...

The rich don't drive the economy nearly as much as the middle class. you go from 60 to 54k, and while they wont hurt as much as the 20k perosn, their spending will drop and that will have effects on the economy as a whole.

Whats the use of that 500k if the people who buy shit form him suddenly cant because they have to now prioritize and he's on the low end of the priority totem pole? Also, see Sear's CEO as an example of rich people not worth their paycheck.

I don't know why people don't understand this. In 2000, the dot-com bubble burst, destroying $7.2 trillion in household wealth over the next two years. Five years later, the housing market crashed, and from 2007 to 2009, the value of real estate owned by U.S. households fell by nearly $6 trillion.

Despite the lower nominal dollar losses, the housing crash led to the Great Recession, while the dot-com crash led to a mild recession. The biggest difference can be seen in the consumer spending. The housing crash killed retail spending, which collapsed 12 percent from 2007 to 2009, one of the largest two-year drops in recorded American history. The bursting of the tech bubble, on the other hand, had almost no effect at all; retail spending from 2000 to 2002 actually increased by 8 percent.

It was the distribution of losses that made the housing crash so much more severe than the dot-com crash. The sharp decline in home prices starting in 2007 concentrated losses on people with the least capacity to bear them, disproportionately affecting poor homeowners who then stopped spending. The tech crash concentrated losses on the rich, but the rich had almost no debt and didn’t need to cut back their spending.

For the poorest homeowners, houses were by far the most important thing they owned going into the Great Recession, making up almost 80 percent of their total assets. On the other hand, housing was a much smaller part of the overall asset portfolios of the richest households — less than 20 percent.

By 2008, the tech sector had pretty much recovered. In fact 2008 was the start of tech sector 10-year bull market run. On the other hand, the devastating effect of the 2008 housing market crash can still be felt now.

Take a look at the Federal Reserve Outstanding Mortgage Debt between 2014 and 2018.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/...nd/current.htm

Between 2014 and 2018, the residential mortgage debt barely grew (less than 10%). Compare to that to pre-crisis when it was growing at least 10% per year.



The majority of the current mortgage holders are the rich people and the survivors of the 2008 crash who were able to take advantage of the drop in the housing market to leverage and take advantage of the subsequent rapid rise in home value.

Ten years later, US homeownership is at its lowest since 1967.




The worst part is the lost of trust in the US financial institutions and the governments ability to shepherd the economy.

[Themius]

The same percentage as most people. I could see lowering/eliminating taxes for people so poor that they can't get by and are living off of food stamps, but there's no reason for someone who makes more money to be forced to pay more of it for income tax.

They'll already be taxed on other things such as their property, their purchases, and so on. Their income specifically should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think you understand how capitalism works.

Taxes are relative. higher taxes on higher wages aren't as effective on the person's wages versus lower taxes on much lower wages.

[Torto]

Funny, I don't remember saying anything like that. What I AM saying is that we need to change our tax laws to better serve our society. To have a SINGLE PERSON homeless or hungry in the richest nation on Earth is absolutely unacceptable. Period.

So we tax everyone until they are all poor? I wonder why it was that communist Russia had poor hungry people. In fact, I'm sure millions starved. I wonder if North Korea has hungry people....

Western society has a thing called welfare, a social safety net. There is no reason for anyone to be hungry.

[NihilSustinet]

The same percentage as most people. I could see lowering/eliminating taxes for people so poor that they can't get by and are living off of food stamps, but there's no reason for someone who makes more money to be forced to pay more of it for income tax.

They'll already be taxed on other things such as their property, their purchases, and so on. Their income specifically should be taxed at the same rate as anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think you understand how capitalism works.

i understand exactly how capitalism works, which is why i think it should be abolished.

[Torto]

I think salary should be capped. i dont know where, but def under a million a year. everything above the cap would be taxed 100% (including capitol gains).

Yeah, we don't want people to strive to be successful or anything. Once you get to a certain level just stop and go home. Who needs ambition when you can have apathy.

[Themius]

So we tax everyone until they are all poor? I wonder why it was that communist Russia had poor hungry people. In fact, I'm sure millions starved. I wonder if North Korea has hungry people....

Western society has a thing called welfare, a social safety net. There is no reason for anyone to be hungry.

40% tax per million over a million won't make anyone poor.

Social safety nets and welfare need taxes... we need more in America. How do we fix the deficit? How do we give everyone healthcare?