With the elections coming soon for next year, and after reading an article over the issue it sparked a reminder of this debate. Plus this might be a relaxing turn of events from the cumbersome religion v. science debates that are constantly on this section of the forum.
The current minimum income level of the highest tax bracket is $250,000. The argument is that the Department of Treasury shall create five additional tax brackets with minimum income levels of $500,000; $1,000,000; $5,000,000; $10,000,000; and $25,000,000
First The system is antiquated. By relying on an antiquated tax system the administration is missing out on a chance to redefine the top tax brackets in order to distinguish the âso-called richâ from the really rich. By so-called rich I'm referring to the professional class: doctors, lawyers, accountants ect. But the plutocratic "executive suiteâ wealthy, are in a class of their own. Because someone making $375,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as someone making $375 million a year. It's like comparing Ochocinco to Ochocino's denist. If more tax brackets were created at the top end of the scale, more revenue could be collected from the plutocratic class, without putting an extra burden on the professional class. Thereâs a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates.
This system would not only be fairer but also create additional revenue to the economy. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue. We're looking at a reverse on trickledown economics. If the plutocratic class were to take more of the weight on taxation, the lower tax brackets are not going to have to take as much weight as before, puting more towards our defecit. This in turn will not alienate the constituents but influence them positively in support for a Bill such as this. Millionaires such as Donald Trump have voiced their opposition to proposals such as this. They claim they will state hop if this were implemented state wide rather than federal based. If a bill such as this were implemented by the Department of Treasury then there would be no way for top payers to opt out of the tax by simply switching states. Not only that but it would be wiser to alienate 3% of constituents compared to 97%. There would be political advantages, too: the reform could actually make tax hikes on top earners more popular. Critics like to describe tax hikes as hurting small business, because small-business owners make up a sizable percentage of people in the top two brackets. But because small-business owners, unlike Wall Street traders, are popular on Main Street. It would be harder to mount a defense of millionaires Which may be why last year a poll found overwhelming support, from both the right and the left, for a millionaire tax. Conclusion: A Bill such as this will reflect positively on the economic status we have now and will be supported by constituents on both sides.
The problem is that you're basing your entire argument on a zero-sum idea: that taxing the "rich" will have no effect on the "rich"'s income - that they will always be producing the same like chess pieces.
You're only REDISTRIBUTING capital this way.
We'll look at 3 scenarios - Government spends the money, Government burns the money, Government taxes less.
Scenario 1 - Government spends the money
If the government spends the money, they must choose where to spend the money. Now, understand how the free market works - by companies competing with one another, there is competition, and the most able company - the one that is the most able to engage in mutually beneficial trades with consumers is the one that will be victorious.
Government spending, however, upsets the mutually beneficial trades between consumer and company by helping one particular company - giving it an unfair advantage over the other companies. Thus, certain companies may be favored that are more inefficient at satisfying the consumer (through mutually beneficial trades) than other companies because of government sponsorship.
Now let's look at scenario 2.
Scenario 2 - Government Burns the Money
It looks awful - the government is burning the money! However, notice that the government is - 1. Decreasing the supply of money, and 2. Not affecting the amount of goods in the country. They are doing nothing but affecting inflation. In fact, they are making everyone else's money worth more!
Obviously, severe deflation, like in the Great Depression can have a negative impact, especially if a person is at a constant income or making constant payments over several years. However, notice that you're not hurting the economy directly - you're only making everyone else's money be worth more.
Scenario 3 - Government taxes less
If the government taxes less, then the government will have a smaller share of capital, meaning that people will have a relatively larger share of capital. Because of this, people will be able to have certain trades that they would not have had otherwise. Through free trade, they will be able to "stimulate" the economy in a more efficient way.
The information was taken from multiple articles and my own personal analytics. I put it into an outline on word then copy and pasted from word onto AG. My apologies if you believe otherwise, but I personally prefer to work with outlines before I work on a final draft.
One of the biggest problems with taxes in the USA is that you can get around taxes legally. There are hundreds of ways to get tax deductions, even enough to let you pay zero dollars in taxes. Unfortunately the only ones capable of that are the super rich people.
Instead of the Government making up more and more tax brackets and whatever, clean up the laws on taxing, so that they're airtight, and everyone has to pay, with the exception of certain groups: like people below poverty or who only make so much money per year. The super rich should be taxed about 45- 50% whereas middle should be about 25-45%, and the lower should be 0-25%.
The super rich should be taxed about 45- 50% whereas middle should be about 25-45%, and the lower should be 0-25%.
Wait, what? I'm sorry, but why do you want to give up a quarter of your belongings to the state?! Shouldn't we figure out ways to reduce taxes so we have more control over our money? More control over our lives?
I guess I'll never understand why people are okay with becoming slaves to the state. Slaves to government controlled businesses.
The middle class includes those that make less than 6 figures a year. 25% is better than what it is now, but 45% of 90,000 is less than 45,000 a year, 50%, taken straight out of your pocket, while 25% is a bit more than 22,000. There is no straight answer to a better economical lifestyle, but having THIS MUCH of an income tax is definitely not the answer.
The super rich can move easily to any country in the world. Super high taxes in USA will just force them to move to a tax haven leaving the government with 0%.
Wait, what? I'm sorry, but why do you want to give up a quarter of your belongings to the state?! Shouldn't we figure out ways to reduce taxes so we have more control over our money? More control over our lives?
Thats what I'm thinking. I don't understand why people would want to give more money to governments when they just arent as efficient as the free market.
And somehow I don't see how taxing the rich more so that the poorer people can be taxed less is any improvement at all. That is just shifting the same problem around, taxes! Surely the others can benefit from the rich being able to spend their money more freely and thus generating income for others.
The Government needs money to run. If they cut the fat out of the Government, and get rid of abusers of Government help programs and such, that 25- 45% will be pretty cheap. You all want the Government to help everyone they can, and do this, and do that... but if you have to pay because the Government needs money to conduct business... then the Government is so extremely greedy and evil!! People have to pay if they want the Government to function. Your tax dollars go to medicare, social security, and other help programs. It goes to police and fire ( the federal Government gives out money to states and communities to help run public safety and transportation.) It goes to fund schools, mass transportation systems... Then the government has to pay congress, the executives, and all of the other government workers... and that's only scratching the surface. The government needs money to run, and as of right now, they need a lot of it. But if the government trims the fat, gets rid of useless things and gets rid of people who take advantage of the system, that 45% will be not so much.
I guess I'll never understand why people are okay with becoming slaves to the state. Slaves to government controlled businesses.
Oh I wouldn't mind giving money to the government if I knew that i helped a poor sick child get free medicine. But giving money so the government can go and buy new guns and bombs to kill people in some country is something i would have a hard time to do.
The Government needs money to run. If they cut the fat out of the Government, and get rid of abusers of Government help programs and such, that 25- 45% will be pretty cheap.
The Government DOES need money to run. But, this statement doesn't justify higher taxes in itself at all, because you first must assome that the government is a good thing in itself.
We make the case against this - government spending is highly inefficient and leads to poverty and overall loss of production.
Free markets create wealth - government spending destroys wealth - see Government Spends Money vs. Burns Money vs. Lowers Taxes.
The Government DOES need money to run. But, this statement doesn't justify higher taxes in itself at all, because you first must assome that the government is a good thing in itself.
We make the case against this - government spending is highly inefficient and leads to poverty and overall loss of production.
Free markets create wealth - government spending destroys wealth - see Government Spends Money vs. Burns Money vs. Lowers Taxes.
For once, we agree on something. The Government needs to spend on complete needs... taking care of the poor, the sick, and the disabled before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into other ways to kill people
Actually this could be solved by eliminating the tax brackets altogether and charging a flat tax across all incomes. Also we have religious organizations which bring in multiple billions of dollars per annum which we should, in my opinion, be taxing as well, just like any other business.
Actually this could be solved by eliminating the tax brackets altogether and charging a flat tax across all incomes. Also we have religious organizations which bring in multiple billions of dollars per annum which we should, in my opinion, be taxing as well, just like any other business.
Churches aren't businesses though. They're non- profit organizations. Most of the money goes to relief funds and missionaries. The church I go to is struggling to survive as it is, taxes would make it even worse
