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.
Yes, but they shouldn't be considered non-profits. They are, pure and simple, businesses. Not to mention that it is a multi-BILLION dollar business in the US alone.
Most of the money goes to relief funds and missionaries.
BS. Seriously. This is why we see the opulent buildings, the ministry driving around nice, top of the line vehicles, and living luxurious lifestyles in the large churches.
Sure, I'm sure some churches do a lot of good work, but I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's 1/3 of them, let alone enough of a majority to consider all religious groups non-profit organizations.
BS. Seriously. This is why we see the opulent buildings, the ministry driving around nice, top of the line vehicles, and living luxurious lifestyles in the large churches.
Sure, I'm sure some churches do a lot of good work, but I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's 1/3 of them, let alone enough of a majority to consider all religious groups non-profit organizations.
The church I come from is extremely small, with a congregation of about 35-45 on a good day. I can't vouch for big catholic churches, but our church gives most of it away for missionaries and charity work. Our pastor's cars are all pretty much toast, their house is extremely run down, and I don't even think our Pastor has health insurance. Tax our church, and we're screwed.
The church I come from is extremely small, with a congregation of about 35-45 on a good day. I can't vouch for big catholic churches, but our church gives most of it away for missionaries and charity work. Our pastor's cars are all pretty much toast, their house is extremely run down, and I don't even think our Pastor has health insurance. Tax our church, and we're screwed.
The tax wouldn't kill your church pyro. Taxes are based on income. If your small church doesn't bring in much in tithing then it will pay little to nothing in taxes, similar to individual taxes. However it WOULD bring in billions across the board from the large megachurches, televangelists, and the well-established organizations like the Catholic and Mormon churches.
Here's my thing on it. Religious organizations provide a form of therapy. The believers go there to enjoy the social gatherings, reaffirm their faith (which functions as a psychological stabilizer of sorts) and to learn more things about their religion which, in turn, provide further 'therapy' if you will. The effects of religion on the human mind and body are identical to those of therapeutic sessions, however a professional therapist is forced to register his business, be licensed, and is taxed on every penny he makes yet ministers, pastors, et al are not, even though the result of these two are nearly identical. What is it about religion that makes it immune to being treated like anything else?
MRWalker82, I don't think charging a flat tax rate across all incomes would work because we simply don't live in a linear economy. Different jobs (functions of society) are valued differently, and are thus paid differently. Why should a single mom working 30 hours a week at a local restaurant serving tables pay the same tax as a neuro-surgeon earning a 6 or 7 figure salary? Those with wealth have less need for the social programs developed and maintained by tax dollars, whereas that single mom likely needs subsidized child-care while she's hauling a*s bringing us our family's dinners and drinks. Although, I do agree with your take on organized religion. The Catholic church has got to be the richest organization on the planet.
What we must look at is defecit spending, regarding our bear and bull markets. Right now we are seeing our market beginning to restate its bull status, but what FDR did in the 30's isn't being regarded. He was very easily pursuaded on the triple R's (relief, recovery, and reform) and we see things like FERA, the FDIC, and the former CWA, but if we can look at a keynesian view of economics the government should use the boom years of our economy as a surplus to be able to fuel the system when we hit the bust (as we did in the last 2 years) Our government decides to spend out of our defecit regardless of how our market is in the last 5 or 6 decades and that in turn has flown away from the FDR reforms that had been put in place.
Maybe if we offer some form of tax credit to the top earners to give an incentive for a millionaire tax we could see a little more support on their part. Like say for every $250,000 of yearly income you'll receive a 2% income tax credit. The government already grants deductibles to corporations that donate to charitable associations.
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.
Ah. I love your flawed scenarios but let me see what I can sect from this.
Well, I am disappoint. What does this have to do with taxes? This is just anti-government.
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.
How does collecting taxes cause inflation? Collecting taxes has been shown to lower them, like during Roosevelt's and Clinton's presidency.
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.
Wrong. Corporations would have a larger share of the capital. Corporations always win in free markets.
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.
Depends. The tax system needs reform.
Flat tax won't do it. A steadily increasing tax that has no deductions seems to fit the ticket.
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%.
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.
I brought this, up there would have to be no minimum income to tax. That means someone who earns $25 000 a year would have to pay taxes also.
MRWalker82, I don't think charging a flat tax rate across all incomes would work because we simply don't live in a linear economy. Different jobs (functions of society) are valued differently, and are thus paid differently. Why should a single mom working 30 hours a week at a local restaurant serving tables pay the same tax as a neuro-surgeon earning a 6 or 7 figure salary? Those with wealth have less need for the social programs developed and maintained by tax dollars, whereas that single mom likely needs subsidized child-care while she's hauling a*s bringing us our family's dinners and drinks. Although, I do agree with your take on organized religion. The Catholic church has got to be the richest organization on the planet.
They wouldn't pay the same amount. They would pay the same percentage. E.g. We tax everyone at 10%. The person making 10K per year pays 1k. The person making 1MM per year pays 100K. We will lose a bit compared to the system now, but adding in taxes from religious organizations and others similar will leave us with an overall increase in income.
They wouldn't pay the same amount. They would pay the same percentage. E.g. We tax everyone at 10%. The person making 10K per year pays 1k. The person making 1MM per year pays 100K. We will lose a bit compared to the system now, but adding in taxes from religious organizations and others similar will leave us with an overall increase in income.
I understood that you meant a flat tax rate. What I meant was that the value of that $1k to that single mom earning $10k yearly is significantly higher than the $100k to that neuro-surgeon making $1M yearly, according to the costs of maintaining a decent living: food, shelter, health care, etc., so a flat tax rate doesnât seem fair. One that is based on a similar gradation as the way in which we pay these jobs would balance things out better, which is why I do support the additional tax brackets. The unfortunate thing about the tiered brackets is that you canât legislate morality: that is, the common decency needed for the rich to share their abundance with those who need, else they find alternative means to hide/keep their money, as mentioned throughout this thread. Passing laws wonât make the greedy any less so.
Which is exactly why I think that a flat tax would be more beneficial. Perhaps concessions for those below the poverty line, but above that then a standard rate should be set across the board. That way no group is singled out, except perhaps those below the poverty line, for special increases or decreases in taxes. Increasing the tax rates for increased income is not 'fair' either, as you are essentially punishing people for being successful. Furthermore those people who are very wealthy invest more, and spend more, which results in increased income from sales taxes, as well as increased consumer spending which equates, typically, to a more stable economy and job growth. By taking more of their money to give to the government directly we are, in theory at least, taking money out of the domestic economy.
The rich already "single themselves out" by the way in which they live their lives in wasteful opulence. A flat tax rate only furthers the margins between these classes. The tiered taxes address this situation. There is just no need, irrespective of their contribution to the world, to have the very few earning the very most of what our planet has to offer. The classes already instilled into society must be dealt with accordingly, and a flat tax rate just won't wash.
