Rich, poor, workers, owners...

**Hondo** · 19th February 2010, 14:37

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 look at Rollo and Eki on here, and some others always going back to that poor worker argument. Most on here lean towards socialism and thats understandable because you were raised under the promise that the umbrella would always be there for your protection and well being. Depending on where a society is in it's development, I can see where all forms of government would have their good points. The trick I think, is knowing when a change or modification is in order for the society to survive or if the price of survival is too dear, allow the society to collapse and rebuild itself.

I also see Hazell on here. Over the years, we have watched and heard about her business and it's ups and downs. She has expanded her business and in doing so has also incurred financial risk to herself. She has taken out loans, signed leases, and contracts obligating her to purchase products that she hopes she can sell or use to her profit. She puts in long hours and frequently works at least one day of the weekend. I would guess that, at least indirectly, she also creates jobs for others. She seems to constantly be on the lookout for new opportunities. I doubt she does all this with the thought of bailing out the NHS or getting a bigger benefit for those pool souls riding the dole. I think she does it because she wants more for herself and she wants the choice of to whom she is charitable. These figures are only for example because I don't know your rates and feel free to read the dollar sign as pounds. Just for fun, let's say Hazell makes $95,000 a year and is taxed at 20% and has to pay $19,000 in taxes. Now some group of jokers decides that anyone making over $100,000 is rich and has to pay the new rich tax of 40%. Hazell, through her small business expansion makes $107,000 but is now taxed at 40% meaning her tax bill is now $42,800. So for all her hard work and extra risk, she actually put less money in her pocket which may cause her to miss obligations and lose her entire business. If she does survive, she will have to scale back and watch her income or make a big enough jump in revenue to cover the tax increase and still make her profit.

So come on and step up to the plate, get on the list and tell Hazell how much of her earnings you deserve, her being a rich business owner and such.

Fiero- Nothing for me thanks, you don't owe me a damn thing.

**Dave B** · 19th February 2010, 15:30

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

So come on and step up to the plate, get on the list and tell Hazell how much of her earnings you deserve, her being a rich business owner and such.

Fiero- Nothing for me thanks, you don't owe me a damn thing.

If we are to use her as an example then nothing - she doesn't work for me.

If I worked for her I'd negotiate a fair wage and if I didn't like it I wouldn't take the job. If in the course of our business she became staggeringly rich then good luck to her. People who work hard deserve the fruits of their labour.

I am socialist in that I believe the state should come to the assistance of the genuinely needy, but I'm also in favour of a free capitalist economy that lets inviduals earn whatever they can. If a boss earns a massive salary then bravo. They've either earned it through hard graft, or they've convinced somebody higher up the chain that they're worth more than they really are!

What riles me is those people with no ambition stuck in dead-end jobs who say stupid things like "nobody should be paid more than £30,000 per year, it's obscene" when what they really mean is "I wish I could earn what they're on but I lack ambition, skills and motivation".

**Dave B** · 19th February 2010, 15:34

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Just for fun, let's say Hazell makes $95,000 a year and is taxed at 20% and has to pay $19,000 in taxes. Now some group of jokers decides that anyone making over $100,000 is rich and has to pay the new rich tax of 40%. Hazell, through her small business expansion makes $107,000 but is now taxed at 40% meaning her tax bill is now $42,800. So for all her hard work and extra risk, she actually put less money in her pocket which may cause her to miss obligations and lose her entire business.

PS: your example is flawed, at least in the UK.

We have a series of thresholds above which you pay a higher rate on earnings above that threshold. Here you can earn £37,400 at before you start paying 40% so in your example you'd only pay the higher rate on £69,600 of it.

**Alexamateo** · 19th February 2010, 15:37

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't she be taxed ot 40% only on the $7000 she earned past $100,000?

That said I have no problems with progressive taxes per se. If I were designing it, It would be done by quintiles with the bottom 20% paying nothing or getting everything back, then each quintile would be taxed at 8.25%, 16.5%, 24.75%, and the top marginal rate would be 33%. It would be progressive, meaning that if the bottom household quintile is $30,000, no one pays any taxes on their first $30,000, then everyone pays 8.25% of their income to the next level, and so on.

33% is the top rate because I think any higher is tantamount to robbery. (actually, I think the top rate should be 25% but I am willing to compromise, heck the Bible only asked for 10%, why should government take more, really?)

**Alexamateo** · 19th February 2010, 15:55

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.

**chuck34** · 19th February 2010, 16:13

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.

RIGHT WING EXTREMIST! RIGHT WING EXTREMIST! You actually expect the Federal Government to stick to the roles layed out in the US Constitution? How 19th Century of you. Don't you know that we've "evolved" past that now? Don't you know that the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted to fit the moods of whoever is reading it that day? Silly little right winger. :-)

**Mark** · 19th February 2010, 16:29

Ah the old fundamental misunderstanding of the tax system! People who are "taxed at 40%" have part of their earnings attracting no tax, part at 20% and the rest at 40%. Income tax will never leave you worse off for earning more.

**BeansBeansBeans** · 19th February 2010, 16:46

As a UK taxpayer I'm not particularly concerned about the amount of Govt money lost to benefit fraud. The figures pale in comparison to the amount lost through tax-avoidance by Britain's super-rich.

**anthonyvop** · 19th February 2010, 17:41

Originally Posted by Mark

Income tax will never leave you worse off for earning more.

Isn't the fact that they Tax your income making you worse off? The only people who truly benefit from an income tax are those who earn little or no income.

**GridGirl** · 19th February 2010, 18:57

Vop, if you are a higher rate tax payer you pay £0.40p tax in the higher rate whether you earn £1 over the higher tax rate band or £100k for example. Sure you pay more taxes if you earn more but your still getting that £0.60p more purely because you earn more.

Although this argument is largely irrelevant in terms of Hazell. On the presumtion that Hazell is currently trading as a sole trade Hazell will pay income tax on her income (the name is self explanatory). If Hazell starts making alot of money it would be sensible for Hazell to turn her business into a limited company and pay tax at 21% or whatever the small companies corporation tax is at the minute. She could then pay herself a wage and be subject to the above said income tax or she could pay a dividend. Tax planning is important but I think I'm making this thread too technical.