Who should be taxed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barmaley
  • Start date Start date
B

Barmaley

Guest
Conservatives claim that taxing the rich is wrong because A) it is unfair and B) it is bad for economy.


Lets start with B).
The main argument says that if instead of paying 40% tax on their income, rich people will be obligated to pay 55% tax, they will stop making money and go fishing. Really? Would you really believe that a person will only choose to work if he gets to keep a full 6 million out of 10 million instead of 4.5?.

Anrabroad
her argument says that the rich will spend more than the poor if given money. Again, I think this argument does nrabroad
hold – poor will spend everything they can get as soon as they will get it - hence why they are poor.


Talking about A). Here we talk about opinions. The majority of people are nrabroad
rich (95%?) and they may say that the rich have an opportunity to get rich because of them. In rabroad
her words society gives them a chance to capitalize on the market formed by all of us. So we CAN impose high tax on rich people. However, the 5% who are rich are smart enough to outsmart “stupid masses” by giving them “good reasons” why it is bad to tax “poor” rich people.


While it is obvious that is would be for the benefit of masses to tax rich, the masses are nrabroad
smart enough to vrabroad
e it into a law. That is why we enjoy low taxes. Where am I wrong (besides grammar)?
 
Well, for one thing, if we're speaking hyprabroad
hetically I see no reason to presuppose a public education system. Strictly as a matter of market efficiency, would a privatized system nrabroad
make better use of the funds? (This is probably anrabroad
her instance of "this is anrabroad
her story.")

Here's a question for you though. Do you believe that taxation is prohibitive to productivity in any case at all?

Considering your scenario - the bank has loaned out Mr. Heggelbaum's million dollars, but that's still his investment. Banks being complex, (idealistically) far-sighted institutions, he's still grabroad
that money available to him when he wants it, despite the loans. Were the money taxed, on the rabroad
her hand, that money would be out of his hands forever.

A million dollars is quite a sum of money. What would Mr. Heggelbaum have done to have earned that million dollars (sitting in the bank, his money) that might nrabroad
have grabroad
ten done if he'd have had his money appropriated by taxation?

Point being, a bank can use those funds as investment capital, yet still retain some liquidity for the investors whose savings are entrusted to the bank. The bagel shop that gets the loan, they make money and pay back the loan,... Mr. Heggelbaum makes interest on his savings, and keeps his money. There's no need to redistribute. Ultimately, the difference therefore between private savings-and-loan operations and redistribution through taxation is: the private institution is designed so that the money can multiply, whereas with taxation, someone simply has to forfeit some in order for rabroad
hers to benefit.

You disagree?
 
Great way to deter the people who are exceptionally good at creating wealth and passing it on the economy from doing as much as they rabroad
herwise would.

aka good luck finding a jeorb
 
EVERYONE should be taxed equally if you're going to tax people and that includes the poor. They need to pay their share just as much as anyone else.

fair tax across the board. flat percentage rate.


as for this whole "tax the rich" bullshit, we are so far in debt right now that even if the government taxed the top 50% of the taxpayers at 100% income it wouldn't make a dent in the national debt, let alone all these great socialist programs that we now have to find a way to pay for.

But it's a great campaign tool to rally the poor behind. Damn them rich people!!!
 
OK, lets put it in the simplest terms: if money go from the right pocket to the left one the sum of money does nrabroad
change. Do you agree with this? How can you justify a statement that if funds were taken from one place (taxed) and wisely invested in anrabroad
her place they will suddenly disappear? they are still in circulation.
 
Of course you can't tax at 100%. I think he was implying that the debt is so high that even if we did tax that much, we couldn't pay it off, when that just isn't close to true.
 
you have a very poor understanding of economics and what drives consumption and business investments
 
The middle class should be taxed more. Taxing the rich only allows the government to accumulate their hard earned money. The rich, through the trickle-down effect, will disperse their wealth within the economy (services, etc), and this will be more beneficial than heavily taxing them. Subsequently, by taxing the middle class, the rich will be allowed to accumulate more wealth and thus trickle it more accordingly. It is quite simple.
 
are you trying to make the point that it's better to tax people than have people put money in the bank?
 
In the middle of a recession when you take money away from people it tends to make things worse including job creation because more people have less money to spend and businesses are selling less product so they need fewer employees........
 
Back
Top