Taxes: same rate or same amount?

[JackShephard]

Do you think everyone should be taxed at an equal rate or an equal amount?

This is more directed an people in the US. I don't really know hot the tax system works in the UK

[Professional Russian]

Everyone should be taxed the same..it would be better for the economy(I think?) and people wouldnt be able to complain about the rich people getting tax breaks

[Cicero]

The same percentage of yearly income. Not based off of one number.

[JackShephard]

I feel the same way. I think that if we got ride of the tax brackets, we might start to turn things around.

[Gandalf]

Everyone should be taxed the same..it would be better for the economy(I think?) and people wouldnt be able to complain about the rich people getting tax breaks

I feel the same way. I think that if we got ride of the tax brackets, we might start to turn things around.

Yes but this is not fair.

A person on minimum wage would pay the same amount of tax as a millionaire footballer :eek: which for a person on minimum wage will be a much higher percentage of income.-Unless you actually mean by the same percentage of income instead of same amount (regardless of income). [PLEASE CLARIFY]
That's what your opinions suggest.

What is needed IMO (which could work in US or UK) is a readjustment so that the wealthy are taxed more supplementing a decrease in taxation on families and the elderly, for example.

[Korashk]

The tax amount and rate should be the same; zero.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I think we should all be taxed the same percent. Making the rich pay more is a bad idea for 3 reasons: 1. They are the ones who hire us, 2. The gov. is very bad at investing money whereas rich people aren't, 3. Taxing the rich paves the way for a communist government. If we are all taxed the same percent everyone is paying their fair share.

[jackson94]

I personally think tax brackets are the best idea. In response to Silent Rebel's 3 points

1) The government hires millions of people too. The public sector in America's economy is huge.
2) The government makes great investments, and some bad ones. just like 'rich people'.
3) Not even sure what that means. America during our most anti-communist times (50's-70's) had federal tax rates as high as 90% on high income. Communism isn't a government, it is an economic system as well.

I think we need a progressive bracket system, as we do now, but take it further. Income under $20k is not taxed (except for payroll), and income over $1 million is taxed at 50%, with about 5 or 6 brackets between those two. Also, I'd get rid of the payroll cap, and count capital gains and income earned by inheritance as taxable income.

[JackShephard]

As I was asked to clarify, I mean same percentage, yet a low enough percentage so that middle and lower classes are not hindered. And those who are, the government should be able to afford a social program for those who NEED it. I live in an area where WAY too many people take advantage of social programs. Even distant relatives of mine do this. They refuse to look for work and it makes me sick. Maybe, there could also be a system that not only keeps an eye on possible people who take advantage of the system, but actually helps them find a job (assuming they don't have one) so that they are more encouraged to get out of the rut. (i dont know how much that is or is not actually involved with social programs) Regardless if there is abuse of the system or not. Then again, we have to be careful enough to make sure the gov doesn't grow too powerful. A more powerful government can easily become corrupt. Ideally, I would want there to be no need of social programs. Unfortunately, people still need them. I guess nothing can be perfect. :-/

[Jupiter]

i think the rich should be taxed. actually, it should be like.. a certain percentage based on your family income.

[Maverick]

Part of the problem of taxing the rich more is that wealthy business owners are the real pioneers behind creating jobs and industry for an economy. Also they provide money for capital investments for banks, small businesses, loans, etc. But for the most part they are the ones hiring people which benefit the lower classes.

Instead of debating whether we should tax the rich more/less, what really needs to be debated is why does the government require so much of our money? Yes there are necessities that the government must need to fund. However, if a bunch of old politicians are needing half our paycheck, instead of asking why not take less from me and instead more from the rich... ask yourself why do they need so much of my money and are they spending it wisely?

Until more people do that politicians are going to continue robbing us blind.

[Weeping_Angel]

The tax amount and rate should be the same; zero.

That is a bad idea for so many reasons. While I do think that we are taxed too much, if nobody paid taxes, then our whole government would collapse right under us, therefore placing all the other reasons for it to be a bad idea.

[Korashk]

While I do think that we are taxed too much, if nobody paid taxes, then our whole government would collapse right under us, therefore placing all the other reasons for it to be a bad idea.
You assume that's not what I want. The concept of the state is literally the worst thing in the world and it's gradual and non-violent downfall would be the best thing to ever happen.

Although, this is a topic for a different thread.

[Weeping_Angel]

You assume that's not what I want. The concept of the state is literally the worst thing in the world and it's gradual and non-violent downfall would be the best thing to ever happen.

Although, this is a topic for a different thread.

True.... In some sorts

[Abigballofdust]

In my opinion taxes should be equal for everybody. A fixed percentage that everybody pays given their income.
There's no sense in having percentage brackets because that discourages investments.
For example: one earns 10. He is in a low income bracket and is taxed 20%. Means he gives 2 to the government. An other earns 100. He is in high income bracket and is taxed 40%. Means he gives to the government 40. What do we have now? One earns 10 times more but gives 20 times more money to the government. How is that fair?
@Jackson94: you're right, only thing is the gov does all that with YOUR money, while privates do all the business with THEIR OWN money. A gov business failure hits the whole population in a much more direct way than a private business fail.

[jackson94]

For example: one earns 10. He is in a low income bracket and is taxed 20%. Means he gives 2 to the government. An other earns 100. He is in high income bracket and is taxed 40%. Means he gives to the government 40. What do we have now? One earns 10 times more but gives 20 times more money to the government. How is that fair?


You simply do not understand how tax brackets work. If you earn 100, your first 10 are taxed at 20%. So, out of the first 10 you make, you give 2. Than, say there was a tax bracket for people making between 10 & 20. At all income between 10 and 20 you make, you pay, say 25%. So, you would pay 2.5. So, out of your first 20, you pay 5.5 (27.5%). It does not exactly burden the rich, it burdens income that is considered rich.

Moving on, I simply do not make such a drast distinction between money the government spends, and money the private sector spends. Government has innovated so much for our nation. Today, if we left it up to our private sector, green energy innovation, for instance, would halt. No company cares about green energy, because
A) Other countries such as China, Germany, and Japan invest so heavily in it that no private company can compete without U.S. government investment.
B) Oil is so gosh darn reliable, and profitable. Why risk investing in an unsure market? Corporations don't give a fuck about the environment. Given the right electees, government does.

[Abigballofdust]

Well, I'm not American and not into your fiscal system, however from what I've seen, given the right brackets, you'll eventually end up with my scenario.
You make money with the aim to have an easier life and you already pay more by the sole fact you're paying a percentage and not a fixed rate, why would you have to pay a richmen's tax? This is one more step towards communism, which is according to what I've heard about America, ironic to the bone.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I personally think tax brackets are the best idea. In response to Silent Rebel's 3 points

1) The government hires millions of people too. The public sector in America's economy is huge.
2) The government makes great investments, and some bad ones. just like 'rich people'.
3) Not even sure what that means. America during our most anti-communist times (50's-70's) had federal tax rates as high as 90% on high income. Communism isn't a government, it is an economic system as well.

I think we need a progressive bracket system, as we do now, but take it further. Income under $20k is not taxed (except for payroll), and income over $1 million is taxed at 50%, with about 5 or 6 brackets between those two. Also, I'd get rid of the payroll cap, and count capital gains and income earned by inheritance as taxable income.

1) Yes, the government provides a large amount of jobs. I personally think this in it's self is bad. Someone mentioned above that the wealthy are the "pioneers". In other words they are the ones that come up with revolutionary ideas. An economy isn't about paying the government a certain amount of money, it's about creating new products that the public is willing to buy, so that the money can float around. I personally think having so many useless government jobs is insulting. The main branches of government, the ones that are absolutely needed are the only ones I think should be getting our money, and only enough to survive and maybe go to a movie every weekend. I definitely think funding government bureaucracies is not a good way to spend the American's tax money. The post office? Who sends written letters anymore?

2) Hmmm OK I'll leave it up to you to give me some legitimate investments the gov. has made. In the mean time some not so positive things:

a) Unemployment/Food stamps for people who are too lazy to get a job. Sure they might be unfortunate, but in that case we need to help them get a job not give them free handouts.
b) Campaign funding

If the government was good at investing money, would we be some 15 trillion dollars in debt?

3) Ugh here we go.
a) Gov. takes some of riches money gives it to poor (They should be getting their own money)
b) Gov. takes some money for itself
c) Tax rates on the rich will get so high (over time) that the rich will only be making as much as the middle class
d) Part of the money taken by the gov. will go to the poor (who should be making their own money)
e) The other part will go towards the gov. workers and it's closest friends

I would like to use the hunger games as an example. This book series, believe it or not, is an example of what could very well happen to us in the future. Everyone in the government makes tons of money and lives in luxury. Us, the citizens (there are no classes now, only citizens and government) live in poverty and hardship to support the government and it's radical spending. Despite the fact that we can very easily support ourselves we have become dependent on the government. This book takes place in future north America. The author mentioned something interesting in the third book. When they were talking about setting up a republic the main character says something along the lines of "The people who lead this type of government in the past obviously didn't care what would happen to us in the future". That is the truest sentence I have ever heard. The people in our government have the ideal that since they're not gonna be here when shit goes down the toilet, they can do what ever they want. In the future we are going to suffer because of this. Taxing the rich is one step closer toward this reality.

[Smeagol]

Yeah, I think it should be a fixed rate. Because there are so many tax loopholes for rich people, who should pay more to help more.

[Texas warrior]

No income taxes only sales tax.

[jackson94]

1) Yes, the government provides a large amount of jobs. I personally think this in it's self is bad. Someone mentioned above that the wealthy are the "pioneers". In other words they are the ones that come up with revolutionary ideas. An economy isn't about paying the government a certain amount of money, it's about creating new products that the public is willing to buy, so that the money can float around. I personally think having so many useless government jobs is insulting. The main branches of government, the ones that are absolutely needed are the only ones I think should be getting our money, and only enough to survive and maybe go to a movie every weekend. I definitely think funding government bureaucracies is not a good way to spend the American's tax money. The post office? Who sends written letters anymore?

2) Hmmm OK I'll leave it up to you to give me some legitimate investments the gov. has made. In the mean time some not so positive things:



Your seriously going to make me list out positive investments made by the US governmnet? Ahh god. Every single bridge and most buildings in every city in the United States. Canals and railroad tracks across the continent. Huge innovations in the last 100 years in chemistry, nuclear physics, and green energy innovation in labs 100% financed by public funding. Every highway in the country, roads, street signs, everything that makes this country work so well. What are you even talking about??

Want more specifics? The US government was absolutely huge in funding and innovating the INTERNET. It funded the creation of Ellis Island allowing millions of immigrants in to the country. Dams across the country that supply our country with clean energy. NASA, pushing the frontier of human possibilities further than any private company ever would. Not to mention our entire system of public education.

Ok sure, the US Post Office is running a big deficit these days (in part to the internet, which they also innovated). But, it is completely unfair and borderline blasphemous to call the USPO a bad investment. The USPO ran one of the most efficient and trustworthy mailing system in the world for well over 200 years.



a) Unemployment/Food stamps for people who are too lazy to get a job. Sure they might be unfortunate, but in that case we need to help them get a job not give them free handouts.


...In a perfect world, sure. There aren't many jobs out there.


b) Campaign funding


What does this mean? Our government doesn't fund campaigns (which I think is the root of a HUGE amount of problems in our country).


If the government was good at investing money, would we be some 15 trillion dollars in debt?


I'd make the case they are good at investing. We have $15 trillion dollar debt because we are obsessed with our military and low taxes (especially on some of the richest Americans).


3) Ugh here we go.
a) Gov. takes some of riches money gives it to poor (They should be getting their own money)

Well, that's a very libertarian point of view. Most of the left wing, and even much of the ring wing of the United States has agreed that through taxes we will financially aid families in need.


b) Gov. takes some money for itself

And who does that go to? No one owns the government? This is a ridiculous suggestion, and purely speculation.


c) Tax rates on the rich will get so high (over time) that the rich will only be making as much as the middle class

You make it sound like the US is raising taxes? We are constantly cutting taxes! Just last week, a 20% tax on ANYONE who has less than 500 employees.

d) Part of the money taken by the gov. will go to the poor (who should be making their own money)

you already said that.

e) The other part will go towards the gov. workers and it's closest friends

What does this even mean? Of course the government pays its workers.



I would like to use the hunger games as an example. This book series, believe it or not, is an example of what could very well happen to us in the future. Everyone in the government makes tons of money and lives in luxury. Us, the citizens (there are no classes now, only citizens and government) live in poverty and hardship to support the government and it's radical spending. Despite the fact that we can very easily support ourselves we have become dependent on the government. This book takes place in future north America. The author mentioned something interesting in the third book. When they were talking about setting up a republic the main character says something along the lines of "The people who lead this type of government in the past obviously didn't care what would happen to us in the future". That is the truest sentence I have ever heard. The people in our government have the ideal that since they're not gonna be here when shit goes down the toilet, they can do what ever they want. In the future we are going to suffer because of this. Taxing the rich is one step closer toward this reality.

Fox News was saying this exact same thing. This is absolutely propostorous. Saying taxing the rich is moving towards the Hunger Games is just....:eek:

Yeah, I think it should be a fixed rate. Because there are so many tax loopholes for rich people, who should pay more to help more.

Given what you're saying, it seems like you're in favor of a progressive tax rate, like me.

[JackShephard]

Ready? FIGHT!!!
Your seriously going to make me list out positive investments made by the US governmnet? Ahh god. Every single bridge and most buildings in every city in the United States. Canals and railroad tracks across the continent. Huge innovations in the last 100 years in chemistry, nuclear physics, and green energy innovation in labs 100% financed by public funding. Every highway in the country, roads, street signs, everything that makes this country work so well. What are you even talking about??

Want more specifics? The US government was absolutely huge in funding and innovating the INTERNET. It funded the creation of Ellis Island allowing millions of immigrants in to the country. Dams across the country that supply our country with clean energy. NASA, pushing the frontier of human possibilities further than any private company ever would. Not to mention our entire system of public education.

Ok sure, the US Post Office is running a big deficit these days (in part to the internet, which they also innovated). But, it is completely unfair and borderline blasphemous to call the USPO a bad investment. The USPO ran one of the most efficient and trustworthy mailing system in the world for well over 200 years.




...In a perfect world, sure. There aren't many jobs out there.



What does this mean? Our government doesn't fund campaigns (which I think is the root of a HUGE amount of problems in our country).



I'd make the case they are good at investing. We have $15 trillion dollar debt because we are obsessed with our military and low taxes (especially on some of the richest Americans).


Well, that's a very libertarian point of view. Most of the left wing, and even much of the ring wing of the United States has agreed that through taxes we will financially aid families in need.


And who does that go to? No one owns the government? This is a ridiculous suggestion, and purely speculation.


You make it sound like the US is raising taxes? We are constantly cutting taxes! Just last week, a 20% tax on ANYONE who has less than 500 employees.

you already said that.

What does this even mean? Of course the government pays its workers.




Fox News was saying this exact same thing. This is absolutely propostorous. Saying taxing the rich is moving towards the Hunger Games is just....:eek:



Given what you're saying, it seems like you're in favor of a progressive tax rate, like me.

Finish him...

[jackson94]

Ready? FIGHT!!!


Finish him...

i suppose i should find myself a hobby.

[CrashingWaves]

1) Yes, the government provides a large amount of jobs. I personally think this in it's self is bad. Someone mentioned above that the wealthy are the "pioneers". In other words they are the ones that come up with revolutionary ideas. An economy isn't about paying the government a certain amount of money, it's about creating new products that the public is willing to buy, so that the money can float around. I personally think having so many useless government jobs is insulting. The main branches of government, the ones that are absolutely needed are the only ones I think should be getting our money, and only enough to survive and maybe go to a movie every weekend. I definitely think funding government bureaucracies is not a good way to spend the American's tax money. The post office? Who sends written letters anymore?

2) Hmmm OK I'll leave it up to you to give me some legitimate investments the gov. has made. In the mean time some not so positive things:

a) Unemployment/Food stamps for people who are too lazy to get a job. Sure they might be unfortunate, but in that case we need to help them get a job not give them free handouts.
b) Campaign funding

If the government was good at investing money, would we be some 15 trillion dollars in debt?

3) Ugh here we go.
a) Gov. takes some of riches money gives it to poor (They should be getting their own money)
b) Gov. takes some money for itself
c) Tax rates on the rich will get so high (over time) that the rich will only be making as much as the middle class
d) Part of the money taken by the gov. will go to the poor (who should be making their own money)
e) The other part will go towards the gov. workers and it's closest friends

I would like to use the hunger games as an example. This book series, believe it or not, is an example of what could very well happen to us in the future. Everyone in the government makes tons of money and lives in luxury. Us, the citizens (there are no classes now, only citizens and government) live in poverty and hardship to support the government and it's radical spending. Despite the fact that we can very easily support ourselves we have become dependent on the government. This book takes place in future north America. The author mentioned something interesting in the third book. When they were talking about setting up a republic the main character says something along the lines of "The people who lead this type of government in the past obviously didn't care what would happen to us in the future". That is the truest sentence I have ever heard. The people in our government have the ideal that since they're not gonna be here when shit goes down the toilet, they can do what ever they want. In the future we are going to suffer because of this. Taxing the rich is one step closer toward this reality.

The other thing that is important to note is that although it does take revolutionary ideas to become wealthy, it also requires luck. You have to meet the right people, who can enable you to do pursue your ideas. And when it comes to giving financial aid to the poor wouldn't it be beneficial for everyone, because if we aid the poor then the parents will have an easier time providing for their families, and who knows maybe their son is the next great entrepreneur? In addition if we had a flat percent that people had to pay, than it would be impossible for the wealthy to pay as much as the poor. Having tax rates that are high on poorer families is a lot more painful than higher tax rates on the rich. For example Mitt Romney made about 20 million dollars in 2011, if he paid half of it to tax he'd still have 10 million dollars to live on through the year. I don't know about you, but I could make 10 million dollars last me a long time, versus a household that has an income of 100,000 that has to pay half of its money away in tax. To me it seems reasonable to have the rich pay more, because they had to use the economy to get rich, they had to hire the people who make no where near as much as them to get rich, isn't it only fair if they help out the country and the people who helped them build up their business? Without the middle class big businesses couldn't exist. Its pains me to see companies giving CEOs 100 million dollar bonuses when we still haven't
recovered from the recession. The tax cuts millionaires get is costing us and adding to the deficit. The government has a war going on in the middle east, how can we expect to fund it with lower taxes? Lastly your remark about unemployment benefits, why shouldn't the government try and help out the unemployed while they are looking for a job? Of course not indefinitely but if you can't find a job you are sentencing yourself to destitution, and becoming more of a burden on the economy.