that just a few more percentage points of tax on the "super-ultra-rich" earning, say, $2 million a year or more, would balance the budget AND make Social Security solvent....
But of course, these are the people with the most power to resist/prevent such a tax increase.....
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
If you ask me the answer is no. Economic freedom is an important part of freedom as a whole, and an important qualification for America to have. I don't appreciate the already high tax rates and oversized government.
The best way to balance the budget is to axe ineffective government programs, and believe me when I say private entities could handle a lot of this work very effectively.
My point is that even if they busted themselves trying to spend money at a proflegate rate, they still wouldn't get through all they have accrued. So why not contribute to the benefit of the community ( world ) as a greater whole.
I'm also thinking of the middle east with its hundreds if not thousands of incredibly wealthy oil sheiks. \
My point is that even if they busted themselves trying to spend money at a proflegate rate, they still wouldn't get through all they have accrued. So why not contribute to the benefit of the community ( world ) as a greater whole.
I'm also thinking of the middle east with its hundreds if not thousands of incredibly wealthy oil sheiks. \
Because it shouldn't be mandatory to share. That's the ideal behind freedom: You can do what you want unless it violates property rights. Property rights include wealth, life, etc.
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
Absolutely. However, it isn't a real solution the escalating problem in America involving the distribution of wealth. The rich are getting insanely richer and the middle-class continues to shrink. This phenomenon is exclusive to the U.S. amongst developed nations. There some good ideas that have been proposed to halt this. I'm a fan of establishing a "living wage" and a "maximum wage." Enron et al. has shown us the truths behind our "free" market system.
Because it shouldn't be mandatory to share. That's the ideal behind freedom: You can do what you want unless it violates property rights. Property rights include wealth, life, etc.
Not saying I'm disagreeing... but, if it is not mandatory to share, then NO ONE should be paying taxes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is "I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage, just because I have more"
Well, the shrinking middle class is a REAL problem.They're consuming power is being diminished in proportion to their pecentage of the total economic mix.
Ultimately that doesn't bode well for the economic life of the nation.
When companies "downsize" it's usally the middle class that get it in the neck. It's also the middle class who pay the highest amount of tax in proportion to their income.
Ironically, its the both the size & economic health of the middle class, that is the backbone of most western democracies.
In part, it was the overburdening of the middle class in Ancient Rome, that brought about its internal economic collapse. People literally, opted out of paying tax because all around them they could see the super rich of their day getting away with not paying or contributing to the running of society.
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
That's the case of France, where the fortune's tax concern only the small rich, the great ones do not living officialy in France anymore.
Misses De Betencour first fortune of France (and first shareholder of Loreal), do not pay tax in France.
When in 1981 Mitterand the socialist president took power, many frenchpeople fleed out of France to avoid the Fortune's tax. As a result this stupid tax, even she has moral value, do not create money, but make loose one, due to the exportation of our greater tax payer.
The previous example of France has demonstrate the failure of such a choice.
due to higher taxes 3M hasn't expanded in MN in over a dozen years now. there is a real problem with taxes getting too high. you have to remember that you're basically stealing money from people once you get to that point, and there's only so much that will be tolerated.
when you're sucking on someone else's teat, you have to be sure not to bite down too hard.
edit: as for corporate taxes, take a look at some of the largest companies in the US. i would be willing to bet a disproportionate amount are located in states that have low corporate/personal income taxes.
Not saying I'm disagreeing... but, if it is not mandatory to share, then NO ONE should be paying taxes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is "I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage, just because I have more"
?
That's exactly what I'm saying. In an ideal world I'd love there to be no government. Interestingly enough, there wasn't an income tax in the USA until after WWI. (There was a tax during the Civil War, but it was actually HALTED after it was no longer necessary.) It wasn't until the teens that America forgot its heritage.
I think a lot of economists and politicians will agree that taxes affect the middle classes the most. Middle class consumers buy a mixture of standard and luxury goods, and developed economies like our own tend to produce luxury and high end goods. So greater purchasing power for the middle class results in a better domestic economy especially, and thus a better middle class. It's a feedback system. This is the general idea behind supply side economics, and like other feedback systems, it is non-intuitive and difficult to grasp, but it DOES work out in the end. Even if you don't go for supply side economics, though, it is generally held that taxes affect the middle class the most.
---- Some degree of social commentary follows. It's an opinion ----
America should be a haven for the rich, because for many it's the rich that inspire, and ultimately make things happen. The rich also tend to be patrons to the arts, and are often prone to philanthropy. So I'm not saying that people shouldn't give to charities, etc, but we shouldn't be forced by the government to pay taxes designed to redistribute wealth.
Furthermore, I don't think that an extremely low level of economic protectionism -- basically only a federal reserve and perhaps a few other implements -- would promote economic collapse by any means. In fact, the release of government control over a lot of currently held government agencies would probably result in an explosion of private entities, competing in the free market, over the same industries and doing better jobs for cheaper, generating new jobs, etc.
It worked for us before, and we had far less in terms of information technology. I don't see why it wouldn't work better now.
With regards Tax, we all pay tax and we should all pay the same sort of tax. Not all rich people are 'bad' or 'evil' or get there money from 'unethical' practices so accordigly no I dont think they should pay more tax. Some super rich people have worked increadibly hard for their money!
Yes, tax the hell out of them. There are thousands of people that starve to death each day from causes related to poverty.
From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to need.
I'll assume you mean taxation will mean people living in poverty will benefit?
Is that right?
May I ask; since when did taxation go to help poverty? Yes some does both domestically and internationally though aid but honestly taxing more doesnt equal less poverty nesecerely.. Rebudgeting may inturn help with poverty!
taxation goes to our fine governments so they can subsidize domestic grain and convince 3rd world nations to grow non-staples like sugar. If we didn't "help out" 3rd world countries like this, they may not be in such bad shape.
It's not so simple as more tax = better third world.
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
That's the case of France, only the silly idiots who have millions of dollars, and are obliged to live in France pay the higher percentage of tax, the others are not living anymore there.
One of those, writer Alexandre Oler (whose books are vey difficult to find) was called an AIGranFort (=Assujeti Ã* l'Impôt sur les Grandes Fortunes), in a preface to one of his aforementioned books.
Quote:
Misses De Betencour first fortune of France (and first shareholder of Loreal), do not pay tax in France.
When in 1981 Mitterand the socialist president took power, many frenchpeople fleed out of France to avoid the Fortune's tax. As a result this stupid tax, even she has moral value, do not create money, but make loose one, due to the exportation of our greater tax payer.
The previous example of France has demonstrate the failure of such a choice.
Watching from a safe distance (OK, Geneva in case you wondered), I was amazed that France managed to go through the Mauroy government, and live to bear witness.
It seems to me, that in this case, both France and the US seem each to have gone a little too far in their respective directions , while some others (look around) find more reasonable compromises, which themselves should be re-evaluated as reality is changing, and not thought of as some Â?definitive formulae set in stoneÂ?.
Comments
that just a few more percentage points of tax on the "super-ultra-rich" earning, say, $2 million a year or more, would balance the budget AND make Social Security solvent....
But of course, these are the people with the most power to resist/prevent such a tax increase.....
Originally posted by aquafire
I wonder how much tax Bill Gates Pays?
or Rupert Murdoch for that matter ?
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
If you ask me the answer is no. Economic freedom is an important part of freedom as a whole, and an important qualification for America to have. I don't appreciate the already high tax rates and oversized government.
The best way to balance the budget is to axe ineffective government programs, and believe me when I say private entities could handle a lot of this work very effectively.
I'm also thinking of the middle east with its hundreds if not thousands of incredibly wealthy oil sheiks.
Originally posted by aquafire
My point is that even if they busted themselves trying to spend money at a proflegate rate, they still wouldn't get through all they have accrued. So why not contribute to the benefit of the community ( world ) as a greater whole.
I'm also thinking of the middle east with its hundreds if not thousands of incredibly wealthy oil sheiks.
Because it shouldn't be mandatory to share. That's the ideal behind freedom: You can do what you want unless it violates property rights. Property rights include wealth, life, etc.
Originally posted by aquafire
I wonder how much tax Bill Gates Pays?
or Rupert Murdoch for that matter ?
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
Absolutely. However, it isn't a real solution the escalating problem in America involving the distribution of wealth. The rich are getting insanely richer and the middle-class continues to shrink. This phenomenon is exclusive to the U.S. amongst developed nations. There some good ideas that have been proposed to halt this. I'm a fan of establishing a "living wage" and a "maximum wage." Enron et al. has shown us the truths behind our "free" market system.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Because it shouldn't be mandatory to share. That's the ideal behind freedom: You can do what you want unless it violates property rights. Property rights include wealth, life, etc.
Not saying I'm disagreeing... but, if it is not mandatory to share, then NO ONE should be paying taxes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is "I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage, just because I have more"
?
Ultimately that doesn't bode well for the economic life of the nation.
When companies "downsize" it's usally the middle class that get it in the neck. It's also the middle class who pay the highest amount of tax in proportion to their income.
Ironically, its the both the size & economic health of the middle class, that is the backbone of most western democracies.
In part, it was the overburdening of the middle class in Ancient Rome, that brought about its internal economic collapse. People literally, opted out of paying tax because all around them they could see the super rich of their day getting away with not paying or contributing to the running of society.
Originally posted by aquafire
I wonder how much tax Bill Gates Pays?
or Rupert Murdoch for that matter ?
Should Ultra super wealthy individuals & conglomerate companies be made made to pay a much higher rate of tax than ordinary workers.
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
That's the case of France, where the fortune's tax concern only the small rich, the great ones do not living officialy in France anymore.
Misses De Betencour first fortune of France (and first shareholder of Loreal), do not pay tax in France.
When in 1981 Mitterand the socialist president took power, many frenchpeople fleed out of France to avoid the Fortune's tax. As a result this stupid tax, even she has moral value, do not create money, but make loose one, due to the exportation of our greater tax payer.
The previous example of France has demonstrate the failure of such a choice.
when you're sucking on someone else's teat, you have to be sure not to bite down too hard.
edit: as for corporate taxes, take a look at some of the largest companies in the US. i would be willing to bet a disproportionate amount are located in states that have low corporate/personal income taxes.
(at least in the computer industry)
I'll have to think more about corporate taxation and how they actually work, before a good opinion could be formed.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Not saying I'm disagreeing... but, if it is not mandatory to share, then NO ONE should be paying taxes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is "I shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage, just because I have more"
?
That's exactly what I'm saying. In an ideal world I'd love there to be no government. Interestingly enough, there wasn't an income tax in the USA until after WWI. (There was a tax during the Civil War, but it was actually HALTED after it was no longer necessary.) It wasn't until the teens that America forgot its heritage.
I think a lot of economists and politicians will agree that taxes affect the middle classes the most. Middle class consumers buy a mixture of standard and luxury goods, and developed economies like our own tend to produce luxury and high end goods. So greater purchasing power for the middle class results in a better domestic economy especially, and thus a better middle class. It's a feedback system. This is the general idea behind supply side economics, and like other feedback systems, it is non-intuitive and difficult to grasp, but it DOES work out in the end. Even if you don't go for supply side economics, though, it is generally held that taxes affect the middle class the most.
---- Some degree of social commentary follows. It's an opinion ----
America should be a haven for the rich, because for many it's the rich that inspire, and ultimately make things happen. The rich also tend to be patrons to the arts, and are often prone to philanthropy. So I'm not saying that people shouldn't give to charities, etc, but we shouldn't be forced by the government to pay taxes designed to redistribute wealth.
Furthermore, I don't think that an extremely low level of economic protectionism -- basically only a federal reserve and perhaps a few other implements -- would promote economic collapse by any means. In fact, the release of government control over a lot of currently held government agencies would probably result in an explosion of private entities, competing in the free market, over the same industries and doing better jobs for cheaper, generating new jobs, etc.
It worked for us before, and we had far less in terms of information technology. I don't see why it wouldn't work better now.
From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to need.
I dont really care less/more for the rich
If I one day become rich, good for me
With regards Tax, we all pay tax and we should all pay the same sort of tax. Not all rich people are 'bad' or 'evil' or get there money from 'unethical' practices so accordigly no I dont think they should pay more tax. Some super rich people have worked increadibly hard for their money!
Originally posted by Existence
Yes, tax the hell out of them. There are thousands of people that starve to death each day from causes related to poverty.
From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to need.
I'll assume you mean taxation will mean people living in poverty will benefit?
Is that right?
May I ask; since when did taxation go to help poverty? Yes some does both domestically and internationally though aid but honestly taxing more doesnt equal less poverty nesecerely.. Rebudgeting may inturn help with poverty!
Do you understand what taxation is?
It's not so simple as more tax = better third world.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In this matter only pragmatism and realism should prevail. If you make a higher rate of tax for these people, they will flee outside US, and will no pay any more tax to US.
That's the case of France, only the silly idiots who have millions of dollars, and are obliged to live in France pay the higher percentage of tax, the others are not living anymore there.
One of those, writer Alexandre Oler (whose books are vey difficult to find) was called an AIGranFort (=Assujeti Ã* l'Impôt sur les Grandes Fortunes), in a preface to one of his aforementioned books.
Misses De Betencour first fortune of France (and first shareholder of Loreal), do not pay tax in France.
When in 1981 Mitterand the socialist president took power, many frenchpeople fleed out of France to avoid the Fortune's tax. As a result this stupid tax, even she has moral value, do not create money, but make loose one, due to the exportation of our greater tax payer.
The previous example of France has demonstrate the failure of such a choice.
Watching from a safe distance (OK, Geneva in case you wondered), I was amazed that France managed to go through the Mauroy government, and live to bear witness.
At the time, a Parisian comic used to have this line: �Jeunesse ingrate, vous ne méritiez pas Giscard!�.
It seems to me, that in this case, both France and the US seem each to have gone a little too far in their respective directions , while some others (look around) find more reasonable compromises, which themselves should be re-evaluated as reality is changing, and not thought of as some Â?definitive formulae set in stoneÂ?.
Is this true ? Certainly didn't learn that one in history classes.
What about the Boston tea party ?..Wasn't that about Tax ?
Originally posted by aquafire
"Interestingly enough, there wasn't an income tax in the USA until after WWI."
Is this true ? Certainly didn't learn that one in history classes.
What about the Boston tea party ?..Wasn't that about Tax ?
Uhh...yeah... a tax levied by the british before we became the US.
How did the governments raise their subsidies for things like roads, sewerage, even coinage has to be made somewhere & that costs money Hmmm
Originally posted by aquafire
Well that begs the question...
How did the governments raise their subsidies for things like roads, sewerage, even coinage has to be made somewhere & that costs money Hmmm
I think they all sucked goat for heroin. I may be wrong.