Rich, poor, workers, owners...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

How?
Taking someones income to give it to another who didn't earn it isn't equality....it is theft.

---

Yes U are right.


The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Yes U are right.


The current tax rate subsidizes the wealthy in the USA. The capital gains and bouses as shown above are taxed at a mere 15% while those who arre actually working are taxed at a far higher rate, (yes those actually working with the the sweat of their brow), and were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and they spend far more of their money and income on the very basic necessities of life, to say nothing of the "luxury" of going to MacDonald's to feed their family.

So to make up for the lack of tax income to the government, a government that takes the tax income to turn it into expenditures that has a very high percentage going to industries funded by the government, including BANKS, Wall Street, military industry, etc, the workers and wage eaners pay a far higher percentage of their income to make up the difference (and even that is not enough).

Then throw in the tax breaks that primarily only benefit the wealthy......

THAT is THEFT

---

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....

Quote:

---

# In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

# The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

# Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

# The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

# The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

# The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

---

I'd be all for flat tax, if it didn't have two problems: If you set the flat percentage high, the low income population will starve to death or become beggars or criminals, if you set the flat percentage low, you can't afford modern infrastructure and level of public services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

As for those born with a "silver Spoon" in their mouths....

---

Not exactly correct....and Life is really tough when you have to make do, on a mere $$945,000 per day .........Gee, that ain't even a million

and on top of that, you got to pay a 16% tax rate, . :eek:

what is a poor boy to do??? :confused: :confused:


But let us not talk about the fact that many others, making a 100k per year, are paying a higher percentage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

There is no moral argument against that fact.

---

That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

That is only true if you have the morals of a sewer rat.

---

Quite right. Still, how are we to argue with the head honcho of the South Florida Motorsport Report, an august media outlet whose professionalism we can but hopelessly aspire to?

;) :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

You have it totally wrong.
To demand a higher percentage of money from one group because they are more successful is theft.
The Only fair and moral tax is a Flat Tax. There is no moral argument against that fact.

---

Please define your "flat tax" and how the mechanics of this would be implimented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

Also, the question of socialism or not, it's really the role government should play.

I want federal government to provide armies, protect the coasts and borders, regulate interstate trade and disputes between the states, provide infrastructure (communications, transportation) maintain a good and fair court system. In other words, set a level playing field, but make no value judgements as to what is done on that or where or how it is done. I will concede to the federal government environmental laws, because for the life of me I don't see how the market protects the environment without damage first being done to the environment. (of course the particulars are still up for debate. ;) ) At a federal level, they really don't have any business IMO meddling in health and education, those are local issues, along with local police and fire protection etc.

---

This is probably the most sensible post I've read in this thread so far. My difference is that the provision of education and health services as well as the ownership of the infrastructure that provides public services should be in the domain of government.
Public Health and Education need to be in realms of government because of the principles of equity.

I'm not really in favour of a resdistribution of income, but I certainly think that wage rates and conditions should be subject to some sort of regulation; mainly because of the legal consequences involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I see so much on here about poor workers, poor abused workers, workers, owners, rich owners, rich people, etc., so what is rich? What do you consider rich? Is rich anybody that has more than you do? Is rich anybody that makes $5,000.00 more a year than you do? Is a man that wants more and works 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it rich, or motivated, or just stupid?

---

I remember a while back we had a thread trying to define 'what is poor?' and I think we decided that anyone who has access to a computer to answer that question isn't really poor.

But what is rich? Well, the average wage in the UK is about £30,000 p/a, but this includes the super rich so the median is probably more like £20,000 p/a.

I'd say a six figure salary is when i'd class someone as rich. But from a personal perspective money isn't my biggest motivator. I'd much prefer to have a job that I enjoy and can forget about when I get home, than just doing something to make me rich. I have no entrepreneurial aspirations at all.

When it comes to taxes I am all for the progressive taxing system over a flat tax. But I'm all for inheritance freedom. I get a sense of bitterness or maybe jeolousy from people who believe in high taxes on inheritance.