my2003wrx

iTrader: (3)

In the grand scheme of things, they're the ones who probably benefits the most from the gov't.

I think it's all relative, if I were rich, I'd probably advocate equal taxes or whatnot, we're all selfish like that.


:banana:

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

that is the thing, i dont think they should pay more then anyone else. I think the loopholes they use to skirt current tax laws should be shut, and they should pay just as much as i do of their worth.

Plain and simple, you would be a tool to think that they dont get off very lightly on taxes now.

doughboy

iTrader: (3)

everyone is looking out for their own self...nothing wrong with that.

i'm not rich, but i want equal taxes too. the fact that you're rich shouldn't require you to shoulder a bigger portion of that burden. you can rival that with all sorts of economic studies and mathematical logic, but i believe that everyone should be responsible based on percentage, regardless of their gross income.

be it 30%, 40%, etc....leave it at that ratio for all. that is, IMO, fair.

my2003wrx

iTrader: (3)

Yeah but if you were making 20k a year, you probably won't want an equal tax rate across the board, being as that your tax rate would probably be higher if they made a universal rate. I just don't see the gov't saying to themselves "Well we're going to make an equal tax rate and by golly since 20% is the lowest we have, we'll make it 20%." And remember that an equal tax rate would hit harder for lower income households as the cost of living still remains the same.


:banana:

dub2w

If we had higher government accountability, resisted the temptation to wage pre-emptive strikes on other countries, and raised the bar of education in our country, then this discussion would be moot as we could afford to lower taxes.

(just think of how much money we funnel into BS defense contracts... what good will it be when our infrastucture finally rots from all of the corruption??)

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

actually if they made it an even percentage the tax rate would most likely be able to go down for everyone. As the most wealthiest who have the most to pay wouldnt be skirting taxes that they should owe. IE using loopholes to pay 40g a year instead of the 4.5 million they would have to pay if it was a flat tax.

Make sense?

my2003wrx

iTrader: (3)

You do realize that they pay less tax because of their tax breaks right? Not because of the tax RATE. If the gov't wanted to do what you're saying (prevent rich from paying very little relative tax), they'd have to change a lot of the tax code. Rich people basically find ways to reduce their taxable income. If we all had the same tax rate, that doesn't stop rich people from finding ways to reduce their taxable income.



:banana:

doughboy

iTrader: (3)

it's true, it won't be 20% if it's a flat tax rate system....and that exactly my point. we justify that lower income household should pay less b/c the cost of living is independent of income and therefore, would constitute a higher percentage of the household income.

so in essence, we are giving lower income households a break by lessening the tax burden on them since they have to use a greater percentage of their expendable income on living expenses. it may sound a bit cold, but that's also my gripe...why should lower income families pay a lower percentage?

this is analogous to the whole gender equality issue...if they want equal opportunity, then they should open it up to encompass every facade of life. people want the best of both worlds....make less, pay less taxes.

another good example, i feel, is in how a marriage should work. both the husband and wife should offer up a fixed percentage of their income to pay off shares expenses -- i.e. rent/mortage/utilities/miscellaneous costs. it wouldn't be fair to make the husband pay more if he makes more money.

back to the income tax ordeal. it can also be argued that the benefits of taxation (welfare, social security, healthcare, etc) is more oftenly reaped by the lower class. so why should the higher class pay MORE for somethign that they're unlikely to use?

db

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

did i not state that allready?


and being wealthy allows you to expend more resources in finding and using said loopholes.

doughboy

iTrader: (3)

in the true spirit of capitalism, hard work and business savviness should be rewarded. those who make more should be able to keep their earnings. now throw in tax b/c governments require tax revenue to operate. by contributing a fixed percentage or your income, it's fair b/c a certain portion of your hard work is put towards social programs.

by makign the rich pay more and the poor pay less, we are diluting our system to come closer to a socialist system...under the guise of equality.

not trying to be a d*ck...there are loopholes that the rich use and it isn't always fair. this whole issue of social justice and welfare is an interesting and relevant one.

db

psoper

You wanna know what too wealthy is?

try this on:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...xecutives_dc_1

"The study found the average compensation for chief executives at the top 50 outsourcing companies was $10.4 million last year, 28 percent above that of executives at 365 large companies surveyed by Business Week magazine, who earned about $8.1 million each.


CEO pay overall was 301 times higher than the $26,899 earned by the average production worker, the study showed. That's up from about 42 times that of the average worker in 1982."

BlingBlingBlue

The problem is that the tax code has evolved over the years to encourage certain types of behavior, and if you drastically change to a flat tax, or national sales tax, these behaviors will no longer carry the same incentives. I'm not arguing that things shouldn't be re-examined and streamlined. Poorly written, well intentioned laws have a way of becoming loop holes, yet they never seem to get addressed unless a crisis precipitates as was the case with CA AB1890 (electricity "deregulation"). My point is that simply saying "flat tax" makes sense in a 7th grade kind of way, but when the rubber hits the road it will result in unintended consequences.

One example is home ownership. Because you are allowed to write off mortgage interest on your taxes, tax payers are incented to invest in real estate instead of renting. It is one of the primary reasons I bought a home. If that were changed tomorrow, I would be upset. I made a huge investment decision based, in part, on the tax laws.

And to address your initial point, Oaf, I do not hate the rich. I would be considered one of them by many, although I am not in the richest 5% which will enjoy the lion's share of the tax benefits Bush enacted, according to this site: http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

I don't mind paying my share of taxes so long as the government is investing in infrastructure for schools and utilities. I understand that investment in roads and schools pays off in the long run. Unfortunately "long run" doesn't win elections.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

ahhh misguided youth and its colorful disregard for logic and knowledge...

Salty

iTrader: (14)

You've got to be kidding me? Because they're living off the social security, unemployment, welfare money and government programs their hundreds of thousands of tax dollars funded, right?

But if we turn the tables and hit the rich harder with a progressive tax then it's okay, right?

Unless said person is a heir to wealth, rich people don't become rich without a LOT of hard work, dedication and willingness to risk. Why should they be penalized for success, dish out six figure amount for taxes (even after tax breaks) when others are paying minimal taxes and taking advantage of government programs?

Skirting taxes, huh?

I'd like to meet the man paying $40k instead of $4.5million via loopholes

I know of a LOT of tax breaks courtesy of my CPA and me being a self-employed contractor on my 1099. Even with buy-backs, rentals, leases, donations etc. I know for a fact someone with $1million yearly salary paying $250,000 with every break in the book would be paying $300,000-$350,000 without any writeoffs.

$40K to Uncle Sam instead of $4.5million after writeoff's?! LMFAO

This is true but you can only writeoff so much a year. You make it seem like you can writeoff your entire salary which isn't true at all! Instead you'd get back a very small percentage after every trick in the book because you'd exceed the amount of tax breaks you could take and risk audit like a giant red flag.