I'll never understand people that want tax cuts for the rich

[vt2medellin]

The problem is that people have this idea that the top 1% is the billionaire class with all this money and that it fukks the rest of the world over, so their logical conclusion is to raise taxes on the rich.

In reality, the poorest 1%ers are worth like ~$7.5m and the average 1%er is worth, $10m. The $50m+ guys make up less than 1% of the 1%. Whenever the rich gets targeted, the guys who earned their success get fukked and the guys who have so much money it has no more utility to them can just take advantage of loopholes anyway.

I basically think everyone should have a flat and low tax rate (think between 10 and 20 percent, depending on the economy) with two exceptions. Firstly, everyone's first ~$10k would be tax free. Secondly, every dollar anyone makes past a net worth of ~$15m should be taxed at ~50%.

US Population = 318,900,000
Average Household Size = 2.55
Number of US Households = 125,500,000
Mean Household Income = $75,750
Total Household Income = $9,510,000,000,000
Total Federal Income Taxes Paid = $1,400,000,000,000
Overall Weighted Average Tax Rate = ~15%

So if we taxed all income below $10k/year at 0% and all income above $10k/year at ~15%, but also cut spending and got rid of tax loopholes, our tax revenue would be unchanged, but we would have a much more fair system. Then, we could put policy in place to cut spending as well as tax inheritance and any income by people worth ~$25m+ to help the economy even more.

[MiscInformed]

LOL @ OP for not understanding that the disproportionate burden of taxation falls on the middle class. Do you know why Ted Kennedy didn't care about high income tax rates? It's because he could afford accountants to set up and hide his income streams so that didn't get taxed as income.

The only fair tax is a flat tax. That means if OP pays 10%, then so does Bill Gates. Punishing people for success just leads to people not striving for success.

In the 60's, the highest tax rate in the UK was 98%. That's why the Beatles moved the hell out of there. All of their hard work was being done for virtually no personal gain. We had similar rates here in the US during that time (up to 90%).

[Dan916]

Government takes in more money than in the history of the world, thats why.

[nemm75]

Why should the rich pay more? Because "its not fair" give me a fukin break. Can't stand when people demonize the rich or money in general. Ever been employed by a poor person?

[B055M0D3]

Why should the rich pay more? Because "its not fair" give me a fukin break. Can't stand when people demonize the rich or money in general. Ever been employed by a poor person?

Exactly

No one realizes that if you took all the wealth from the rich and distributed it to everyone in the world, everyone would be in poverty.

[m1n2v5]

Idc about the rich, I'd just like it if the middle class wasn't constantly fisted in every economic issue.

[KRANE]

This doesn't make sense. It's just a tax structure. A misclassified subsidy payment is still a subsidy payment.


It's not a flat tax if you have exemptions. The reason the tax system is stupid and the appeal of a flat tax is because there are no exemptions.

Protecting those who's income is at or below the poverty level is the purpose of government. Exemptions in that form cannot be completely eliminated and must always exist.

Should we continue to tax those who have just experienced the ravaging effects of a flood, hurricane, or earthquake? People need a chance to get on their feet again. Otherwise we could just program the tax code into a computer and close down that portion of the government.

Why should the rich pay more? Because "its not fair" give me a fukin break. Can't stand when people demonize the rich or money in general. Ever been employed by a poor person?

Because they have more, and because don't become rich in a vacuum. The issue should be who determines what is fair?

[AhDo]

The problem is that people have this idea that the top 1% is the billionaire class with all this money and that it fukks the rest of the world over, so their logical conclusion is to raise taxes on the rich.

In reality, the poorest 1%ers are worth like ~$7.5m and the average 1%er is worth, $10m. The $50m+ guys make up less than 1% of the 1%. Whenever the rich gets targeted, the guys who earned their success get fukked and the guys who have so much money it has no more utility to them can just take advantage of loopholes anyway.

I basically think everyone should have a flat and low tax rate (think between 10 and 20 percent, depending on the economy) with two exceptions. Firstly, everyone's first ~$10k would be tax free. Secondly, every dollar anyone makes past a net worth of ~$15m should be taxed at ~50%.

US Population = 318,900,000
Average Household Size = 2.55
Number of US Households = 125,500,000
Mean Household Income = $75,750
Total Household Income = $9,510,000,000,000
Total Federal Income Taxes Paid = $1,400,000,000,000
Overall Weighted Average Tax Rate = ~15%

So if we taxed all income below $10k/year at 0% and all income above $10k/year at ~15%, but also cut spending and got rid of tax loopholes, our tax revenue would be unchanged, but we would have a much more fair system. Then, we could put policy in place to cut spending as well as tax inheritance and any income by people worth ~$25m+ to help the economy even more.

isn't top 1% income ~$300k/yr? So it's someone with only ~2.5 mil net worth at ~40 years old. They might get to 10 mil if they keep working slaving away at 9-5 for the rest of their life. It's not glamorous at all.

[NattyAsFuk]

Here in Australia we have mass unemployment, a growing divide between rich and poor and a government hellbent on allowing multinationals to pillage iron, gas and oil from our lands (and pay minimal royalties), import cheap foreign labour at the cost of the locals and finally sell off public assets to the Chinese.

The trickle-down economics employed by those such as Reagan, Thatcher and the current mob of Australian liberal governments (our 'liberal' is the opposite of American liberal - here it refers to economic liberalism, or right wing conservatives) have failed the people, young people are unable to get into the housing market and there are no apprenticeships for school leavers. I am hoping to graduate uni within 3 years and land a 60-70k job (which is considered reasonable money here) in a field I love where I am not selling my soul to some corporate bastard year after year.
Don't forget the difference between a 60k man and a 120k man is the size of your hut or the shine on your automobile. You are still on working class income.

Time to forget about money and chase those dreams boyos

The solution for you

[Kleinnd]

jobs are disappearing
business owners get tax breaks
and consumer spending is at an all time high

we're better off just getting on the winning team and start hustling

[NattyAsFuk]

jobs are disappearing
business owners get tax breaks
and consumer spending is at an all time high

we're better off just getting on the winning team and start hustling

You live in Canada brah
Go make a living on the ski fields or taking tour groups hiking or some biuriful chit

[allianc3]

I think you need to add another 0 to your friends poverty business to be in the range i mentioned.

Were talking about rich, not ultra rich and not in your friends case middle class.

This. My father is a business owner already knows he's going to have to pay 160k+ in income taxes this year. It feels like such robbery, considering how easily that hard earned money is wasted by our corrupt government. I would feel like death writing the government that type of check.

[TLTrooper]

The rich "don't pay taxes" is a peasant perspective.

The rich creates opportunity. They create opportunity by seeking to expand.
The rich create jobs. They create jobs because of that expanded business.
The rich create wealth. They create wealth because if they're lucrative, they're rewarded (along with the worker).
The rich create investment opportunity. They create both public and private investment opportunity.

When the rich gets taxed more, they cannot reinvest that money into creating new opportunity.
They cannot create more jobs because they have to ship them overseas to compete.
When they're unable to create wealth, they must cut costs elsewhere (workforce, wages, benefits etc)
If they are taxed more, they must seek out investors even more aggressively, which is unlikely because if their growth is stagnated by taxes, which is a fuking FINANCIAL LIABILITY, the investors will NOT take that risk and will NOT invest.

And the cycle continues and is true for ALL businesses. IDK why these young 20 year olds feel they know what the fuk is going on just because they saw some chit posted on ********. If you keep taxing or INCREASING the LIABILITIES for these wealth creators, you'll see the pool dry up and that goes true for any American business that has internationally inverted or has operations overseas. You BernieCucks need to pick up Investment 101 before you start crying about increased taxation on the wealthy.

[gottk2x]

when you're rich enough you just evade them

[tas4563]

"Let’s say the rich man is a 50 year old ER doctor who saves lives every single day. He spent 15 years after high school studying, and $300,000 in tuition to become a doctor. Is it right to reward this doctor who studied harder than most of the population with a higher tax rate just because he makes $1 million a year?"

What I don't understand is why the **** there isn't a flat tax.

Wouldn't it make sense to take away a similar percentage?

What's 10% of, 100, 1000, 10000

10, 100, 1000
Now multiple then by 10

100, 1000, 10000

Holy ****... That.... That takes away an equal amount doesn't it? Dear god it's almost like... Like.... There's equality? But wait no we live in a democracy a place founded upon the idea that some people are better and deserve preferential treatment... Oh wait I believe it was ALL MEN ARE EQUAL. So you tell me OP how it's equal to take away more from someone fking up the ratio that would make everyone equal.

[lockdev]

Most people think the rich paying more money in taxes somehow fixes a country's problems.

The question really is, where does that money go?

The answer is the government, which grows and squanders every penny of it.

Most people don't realize that taxing the rich more actually hurts common people unless you actually work for the government.

There are two arguments for this:

Taxing companies and the rich(who tend to be business owners) means less money for wages. They also look to move overseas where things are cheaper. Loss of jobs, which means a higher supply of workers and lower demand for workers, which means lower wages for everyone.

The second is price competition. Government workers end up cashing in on higher taxes, but that's about it. Those working in the private sector now have to compete for things like housing with the same people who they're effectively paying through higher taxes.

To put it into perspective for you, I don't make *that* much money(0.5k/day CEO), and the amount I paid in taxes last year could have hired someone to help me grow my business. Instead it goes to an inefficient, bullchit government that tells me what I can and can't do.

TLDR;

Wealth redistribution is a myth.
Higher taxes on the rich hurts the common man.
Higher taxes just makes the monster that is the US government even larger.

[thorpowers]

Holy ****... That.... That takes away an equal amount doesn't it? Dear god it's almost like... Like.... There's equality? But wait no we live in a democracy a place founded upon the idea that some people are better and deserve preferential treatment... Oh wait I believe it was ALL MEN ARE EQUAL. So you tell me OP how it's equal to take away more from someone fking up the ratio that would make everyone equal.

Technically, in America we should be living in a constitutional Republic not a Democracy, at least that's what we were founded as, and are still known as officially. But I agree we have regressed into a corrupt/rigged democracy. And a democracy as we all know is inherently less free. The majority will oppress the minority in a democracy. A constitutional Republic when adhered to, seeks to protect individual rights.

When Trump gets in the Republic will Rise Again!

[yeshli2nuts]

The issue shouldn't be about raising taxes on the rich. The issue is with government spending. I work for a government contractor and see the amount of wasted money they spend and the people who work in those agencies who do nothing all day. We desperately need a smaller and more efficient government which would then mean lower taxes for everyone.

[CuzHeBrown]

Taxing the rich isn't gonna do chit. It can't cover any social programs. Our spending is out of control.

Those rich people create all the jobs. Putting regulations on them and taxing the chit out of them inhibits that and sends jobs out of the country.

[tas4563]

Technically, in America we should be living in a constitutional Republic not a Democracy, at least that's what we were founded as, and are still known as officially. But I agree we have regressed into a corrupt/rigged democracy. And a democracy as we all know is inherently less free. The majority will oppress the minority in a democracy. A constitutional Republic when adhered to, seeks to protect individual rights.

When Trump gets in the Republic will Rise Again!

Ah I stand corrected lol

[InVentive44]

I agree what you initially said, but some of these corporations sound very greedy. Apple paying 1% taxes in Ireland. There phones sell for $800, but the technology inside them is more like $80 a pop. I'd see if they sold gaming computers, but there are phones, not even 1/10 of power of a computer.

I don't agree with heavily taxing the rich, but greedy companies need to be serverly punished. It's unethical, immoral, and bunch of other words I can't think of.

Capitalism is great, but at this point its being exploited

Lol so people that acutally contribute to society and create jobs should be taxed up the @ss? fuk you

[Schism45]

(Assuming you aren't rich)

"B--but trickle down economics."

Brb maybe after Mr. Rockefeller gets back from his 4th trip to *****, he'll toss us a $500 Christmas bonus this year.

Hell, I can understand feeling that you have no other choice but to get fiscally ass raped.

But some of you *******s actually DEFEND these wealthy sodomizers.




Again, if you're not rich and want tax cuts for the rich, you are a confirmed cuckold.

Basically everyone against trickle down economics just doesn't understand what it means.

Trickle down economics is that you have a job at Mr. Rockefeller's company at all, and that $1.99 billion of his $2 billion networth is invested in other companies and that THIS is what fuels an economy. Tax his company an extra 5%, the profit margin can vanish and along with it your job.

It's not about him tossing you a $500 bonus and billionaire's aren't storing their billions under the mattress to keep it safe at night. It's actually doing something productive in the market.

If you believe an economy is fueled more by your subscription to porn and credit card debt than by direct investment into companies that allow them to grow, produce and expand.... then you believe consumption is more beneficial than producing for a nation's economy.

When you are in favour of taxing the rich, you're asking that money to be invested in industry for you by a middleman, the government, without accountability for their actions or spending.

TL;DR: Think bigger picture.

[babel10]

in the real world, the rich dont pay that High tax the republicans keep saying they do. I mean just ask Trump .

This. Having more money allows you to take full advantage of the tax code. A rich person would have to be an idiot to pay over 1 percent in taxes.

[gunshow101]

(Assuming you aren't rich)

"B--but trickle down economics."

Brb maybe after Mr. Rockefeller gets back from his 4th trip to *****, he'll toss us a $500 Christmas bonus this year.

Hell, I can understand feeling that you have no other choice but to get fiscally ass raped.

But some of you *******s actually DEFEND these wealthy sodomizers.




Again, if you're not rich and want tax cuts for the rich, you are a confirmed cuckold.

rich people made the world and every convenience you enjoy. dont like it? throw your iphone in the trash and move to some socialist **** hole. the rich dont owe you anything.

[Lpenny]

Bro, if you tax them less, they will take that extra left over money and give it to the poor

[hammbergler]

Simplicity is such an overlooked solution in government. You can't out think/legislate the rich. A flat tax and all the tax preparers can go find something else to do.No one should ever pay more than 20% of their income in taxes.

If I lived in california I would be paying 25% in federal and state income tax alone and I don't even make 200K. Rich guy would be paying way less than me.

[KRANE]

The issue shouldn't be about raising taxes on the rich. The issue is with government spending. I work for a government contractor and see the amount of wasted money they spend and the people who work in those agencies who do nothing all day. We desperately need a smaller and more efficient government which would then mean lower taxes for everyone.

Something the GOP used to stand for and support. Sadly, they have lost their way.

[dyee4613]

Protecting those who's income is at or below the poverty level is the purpose of government. Exemptions in that form cannot be completely eliminated and must always exist.

The government does not exist for the sole reason to help the poor. This is not a designed role of the federal government highlighted by article 1, section 8 and the 10th amendment. Please misinterepet the general welfare line to push your false narrative.

Should we continue to tax those who have just experienced the ravaging effects of a flood, hurricane, or earthquake? People need a chance to get on their feet again.

Yes. It is not the government's job to provide insurance.

Otherwise we could just program the tax code into a computer and close down that portion of the government.Because they have more, and because don't become rich in a vacuum. The issue should be who determines what is fair?

Yes. That is the entire point of a flat tax.

[Drhunglow]

Bro, if you tax them less, they will take that extra left over money and give it to the poor

That or they will gladly use that money to pay an american $12/hr instead of someone in china $1/day. Tax is the only reason companies outsource

[dman1260]

Food for thought: 45% of Americans do not pay any federal income tax.

Yet, liberals want "the rich" to pay more? How about we ask half of the population pay their fair share before we start asking "the rich" to pay more? Certainly, these people use government resources and perhaps they do so at a great rate than the rich (perhaps is being kind). I agree the current system has too many deductions and loop holes, but we can't expect half the population to fund the entire country while the other half coasts along, freely using benefits without consequence.

More importantly, can we please define "the rich?" Apparently, democrats believe you are rich if you make >$250K a year. While this may be the case in Mississippi, it's not in California or New York. Yes, it's a good living, but it is by no means rich.