Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!

[Chuz Life]

The rich should pay more in taxes than the workers they may employ because the rich make more.

This is the exact response I was hoping to get. It is also the response I most expected to get.

I omitted the rest of your answer (where you show the math and all) because the math for today's reality "the rich pay more, because the rich make more" doesn't explain WHY anyone should pay more - just because they have, earn, or make more.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is the exact response I was hoping to get. It is also the response I most expected to get.

I omitted the rest of your answer (where you show the math and all) because the math for today's reality "the rich pay more, because the rich make more" doesn't explain WHY anyone should pay more - just because they have, earn, or make more.

I already did.

Via the math you omitted.

If we are talking about Federal Income tax, that is percentage based. If two people are in the same tax bracket those that earn more pay more.

If you are talking about a progressive tax structure, that is a different question.

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

I already did.

Via the math you omitted.

If we are talking about Federal Income tax, that is percentage based. If two people are in the same tax bracket those that earn more pay more.

If you are talking about a progressive tax structure, that is a different question.

WW

I would like for you (or anyone else) to explain why "fairness" is defined as a "percentage of someone's income" (your view) - rather than a fixed amount (my view).

 

[Chuz Life]

So, if we tax the rich more, are we doing it to reduce the deficit or to add more social programs thus keeping the deficits high. Also, the rich will not spend as much on their comforts of life. We always talk of the income tax and all of the other taxes take a bite. A huge one from all. The sales tax of 8% most likely affects the lower classes much more than the rich. And there is a host of other taxes.

This post reminded me to ask those who are demanding higher taxes on the rich. . . What do you suppose the consequences of doing that might be?

Think about your reasons for opposing tariffs, as you answer that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Higher tax rates on big businesses or corporations, makes them wiser, makes them run their businesses more efficiently....

. . . Makes them have to raise the costs and prices of their goods and services, else they lose profits, and why run a business that has "losing profits" built into the business plan?

 

[Chuz Life]

Except we don't pay the same. Our tax laws are skewed to the rich. Warren Buffet once said that he pays less taxes than his secretary. She paid the standard income tax, say 25%, while he paid mostly capital gains tax, say 15%.

There is no such thing as a fair amount of tax since percentages vs absolute numbers give very different pictures. What seems fair to me would be everyone paying the same percentage of their income in taxes. Right now the poor pay at a much higher rate since most taxes, like gas tax, are not progressive.

This makes me wonder if you (or others) even know what it means to "tax" someone or something.

To "tax" someone or something is to place a burden, strain, or heavy demand on it. It's discouraging to anything (anyone) who is burdened with that tax.

So "taxing the rich" not only forces the rich to raise their prices for their goods and services (to cover their tax burden), which results in an effective tax on the consumers of those goods and services. . . The taxes also discourage businesses and growth in the process.

 

[dblack]

I would like for you (or anyone else) to explain why "fairness" is defined as a "percentage of someone's income" (your view) - rather than a fixed amount (my view).

Purely playing devil's advocate here, but I think the rationale is that people with higher incomes are benefiting more from government, so they should pay more.

 

[MarathonMike]

Great idea if you change the fact that the top 1% of earners receive more than the bottom 60% in tax breaks and grants.

Top Content on LinkedIn

Explore top LinkedIn content from members on a range of professional topics.

www.linkedin.com

The bottom 60 percent pay very little to no Federal tax.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would like for you (or anyone else) to explain why "fairness" is defined as a "percentage of someone's income" (your view) - rather than a fixed amount (my view).

This makes me wonder if you (or others) even know what it means to "tax" someone or something.

To "tax" someone or something is to place a burden, strain, or heavy demand on it. It's discouraging to anything (anyone) who is burdened with that tax.

So "taxing the rich" not only forces the rich to raise their prices for their goods and services (to cover their tax burden), which results in an effective tax on the consumers of those goods and services. . . The taxes also discourage businesses and growth in the process.

You just answered your own question.

Let's say the federal budget is $7 Trillion ($7,000,000,000,000) and the population is 330,000,000 people. That's $21,212.12 for every man, woman and child.

The idea is that everyone in the population is taxed equally. That's a little over $21K per person.

#1 Example: A person make an income of $1,000,000. Their tax is 2% of income.

#2 Example: A person makes $100,000. Their tax is 21.2% of income with $79K remaining.

#3 Example: A person make $25,000. Their tax is $84.8 of income with $4K remaining.
.
.
.
.
Using your definition of "...a burden, strain, or heavy demand..." who has a higher burden placed on their ability to function in sociaty. Who will find it a burden, strain, or heavy demand to supply the basics of Maslow's Hierarchy (food and shelter).

Oh, and the above assumes that all 330,000,000 people CAN work so exclude children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. The numbers are even worse.

If you want to assign the same amount (instead of percentage) as the "tax" on each person, give it a go. It ain't passing though.

And that's just the federal budget. Figure in State taxes which also tend to be percentage based and fixed taxes (property tax, sales tax, embedded taxes, etc. which are an ADDITIONAL tax burden and tend to be regressive and impact lower in middle income classes more than "the rich" exspecially when you look at total tax buren as a percentage of income.

This is just an example of concept of why we have a percentage based system instead of a fixed shared system. So don’t nit pick the numbers.

What would you suggest to replace a percentage system?

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

You just answered your own question.

Let's say the federal budget is $7 Trillion ($7,000,000,000,000) and the population is 330,000,000 people. That's $21,212.12 for every man, woman and child.

The idea is that everyone in the population is taxed equally. That's a little over $21K per person.

#1 Example: A person make an income of $1,000,000. Their tax is 2% of income.

#2 Example: A person makes $100,000. Their tax is 21.2% of income with $79K remaining.

#3 Example: A person make $25,000. Their tax is $84.8 of income with $4K remaining.
.
.
.
.
Using your definition of "...a burden, strain, or heavy demand..." who has a higher burden placed on their ability to function in sociaty. Who will find it a burden, strain, or heavy demand to supply the basics of Maslow's Hierarchy (food and shelter).

Oh, and the above assumes that all 330,000,000 people CAN work so exclude children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. The numbers are even worse.

If you want to assign the same amount (instead of percentage) as the "tax" on each person, give it a go. It ain't passing though.

And that's just the federal budget. Figure in State taxes which also tend to be percentage based and fixed taxes (property tax, sales tax, embedded taxes, etc. which are an ADDITIONAL tax burden and tend to be regressive and impact lower in middle income classes more than "the rich" exspecially when you look at total tax buren as a percentage of income.

This is just an example of concept of why we have a percentage based system instead of a fixed shared system. So don’t nit pick the numbers.

What would you suggest to replace a percentage system?

WW

You haven't addressed this part.

So "taxing the rich" not only forces the rich to raise their prices for their goods and services (to cover their tax burden), which results in an effective tax on the consumers of those goods and services. . . The taxes also discourage businesses and growth in the process.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You just answered your own question.

Let's say the federal budget is $7 Trillion ($7,000,000,000,000) and the population is 330,000,000 people. That's $21,212.12 for every man, woman and child.

The idea is that everyone in the population is taxed equally. That's a little over $21K per person.

#1 Example: A person make an income of $1,000,000. Their tax is 2% of income.

#2 Example: A person makes $100,000. Their tax is 21.2% of income with $79K remaining.

#3 Example: A person make $25,000. Their tax is $84.8 of income with $4K remaining.
.
.
.
.
Using your definition of "...a burden, strain, or heavy demand..." who has a higher burden placed on their ability to function in sociaty. Who will find it a burden, strain, or heavy demand to supply the basics of Maslow's Hierarchy (food and shelter).

Oh, and the above assumes that all 330,000,000 people CAN work so exclude children, the elderly, the disabled, etc. The numbers are even worse.

If you want to assign the same amount (instead of percentage) as the "tax" on each person, give it a go. It ain't passing though.

And that's just the federal budget. Figure in State taxes which also tend to be percentage based and fixed taxes (property tax, sales tax, embedded taxes, etc. which are an ADDITIONAL tax burden and tend to be regressive and impact lower in middle income classes more than "the rich" exspecially when you look at total tax buren as a percentage of income.

This is just an example of concept of why we have a percentage based system instead of a fixed shared system. So don’t nit pick the numbers.

What would you suggest to replace a percentage system?

WW

Good post, but needs more editing, particularly here:

#3 Example: A person make $25,000. Their tax is $84.8 of income with $4K remaining.

You should stick with the program first:

#3 Example: A person makes $10,000. Their (flat) tax of $21K puts them $11,000 in the hole.

#4 Example: A person makes $25,000. Their (flat) tax of $21K leaves them with only $4,000 to live on.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Purely playing devil's advocate here, but I think the rationale is that people with higher incomes are benefiting more from government, so they should pay more.

Why "purely playing devil's advocate"? In general, don't people with higher incomes benefit more from government? Is that not an empirical fact?

 

[Chuz Life]

Why "purely playing devil's advocate"? In general, don't people with higher incomes benefit more from government? Is that not an empirical fact?

https://x.com/i/grok/share/xkNZngwp5X0JjPjTZKaHSJBWj

 

[Winco]

This is the exact response I was hoping to get. It is also the response I most expected to get.

How about this answer>>>>>>

The top income earners should in NO WAY pay LESS of an ETR than a low earner.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Stryder50]

A couple of years ago, at a family function (graduation party), the subject of taxation came up. It wasn't me that brought it up, but I did make the mistake of kicking the hornets' nest.

The subject was mostly about the economy and Trump (again, it wasn't me), and one of my in-laws said something about "tax cuts for the rich," or "the rich not paying their fair share."

I wanted a clear answer and explanation for how to know or calculate what "their fair share" should be. That's all.

You would have thought I threatened them with a gun or something.

Needless to say, I never got an answer.

In my view, each and every citizens "tax burden" should initially be the same dollar amount. Thereafter, there should be taxes based on usage. For example, if you have a trucking company with 200 trucks running up and down the road every day.

My reasoning goes like this.

If Trump, Musk, or any other Billionaire were standing in line to buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, should their cost for their gallon of milk be exponentially higher than what I pay, just because they have and make more money than I do?

In my view, fairness means we all pay the same.

Change My Mind.

If we go with a flat percentage rate (which for the most part we have) than the dollar volume paid by "the Rich" greatly exceeds that paid by any of the lower earners/wealthy/"poor folks".

 

[Stryder50]

Great idea if you change the fact that the top 1% of earners receive more than the bottom 60% in tax breaks and grants.

Top Content on LinkedIn

Explore top LinkedIn content from members on a range of professional topics.

www.linkedin.com

They still pay more in real dollars than any of those in the lower 99%.
Not to mention that those "top 1%" provide the investments and capital that create jobs for the 99%.

The basic problem is the immense part of the economy that is tied up by such a tiny proportion of the economy's participants. Those upon whom the functioning of the economy and society depends in the 'day-to-day' have too little influence upon the financial aspects. If that "rich" minority were wise, it would see where this is going (and where it has gone in the past), and would be working toward solutions. Stonewalling and oppressing most likely will result in very negative outcomes for all.
Fundamentally, we need fresh approaches to economics and release ourselves from the false dichotomies that old-time ideologies would keep us bound to.

Fundamentally we need more of the lower income/wealth brackets to use their brains and labor more intensely and efficiently to make their own money and wealth rather than keep trying scheme other ways to "legally" steal from those how have.

Greed is greed no matter the size, and little people's greed to steal from big people's is no different than the delusion that the big people's have stolen from the little people's what they never had or produced in the first place.

You all need to get off your lazy arses and work more efficiently and smarter rather than scam those who did such already.

 

[Stryder50]

How about this answer>>>>>>

The top income earners should in NO WAY pay LESS of an ETR than a low earner.

Do you agree with this?

Include the remove of expectation that top income earners should have to invest to provide capital for the low earners to have a job and an income and you may have something (NOT!).

 

[HikerGuy83]

Change My Mind.

 

[Stryder50]

Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” Abraham Lincoln addressed the importance of labor in his presidential address.

Other side of the coin is that labor would be scraping out a living from the mud unless Capital invests to provide jobs for labor to work at and make more than labor seems able to do on it's own.

Try starting and owning a business, employ a few workers, keep it going and solvent for a few years and then get back to us after you've had some real world experience rather than huffin' your bong dreams and fantasies.

 

[Stryder50]

Help me understand how that answers the question about why the rich SHOULD have a greater tax burden than anyone else has. . Just because they have more money.

It doesn't !

It's another delusion fantasy from one who has no understanding of basic economics nor any real world experience of providing for themselves without someone else giving them a job, or a welfare handout.