Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?

PoliTalker said:
Hello Quetzalcoatl,



That is a quite common sentiment. It voices your concerns for your own well being, but have you considered what is good for the nation?

Whatever the government cuts spending on will affect somebody negatively and hurt the economy to some extent. We don't have to do that if we simply tax the rich more. They can afford it without negatively impacting their lifestyle, since they spend so little of their overall wealth on lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Yeah...they acknowledge that we have a consumer driven economy...

...but when the consumer is the government...they suddenly think that "consumer driven" is not good...

...or as you noted, that cutting that consumption will not hurt the economy.
 
Threedee said:
This has never happened anywhere.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There will ALWAYS be an UPPER CLASS (the haves)...

...there will ALWAYS be a very lower class (the have not nearly enough)...

...and sometimes there will be a class in between...BUT only sometimes.

The chance of only a middle class is so remote as to be considered impossible.
 
Hello Mason,

Mason said:
No there would only be a middle class [under true socialism]
Click to expand...

Only in a perfect world. We can't ever have true socialism because of human nature. That's why we have to have a proper balance of capitalism and socialism.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello and greetings Sirthinksalot,



Well, that is where it is ultimately headed.

But as long as we still have one, I'll address that.

The poor can't pay any more, true, but that also includes the lower half of the middle as well as some in the upper half. People tend to spend what they have up till the point that they have everything they want. So even on an upper middle budget, there could be little room for more taxation. Supposed somebody has huge student loans to pay off, and a large mortgage, and becomes impacted with a personal tragedy such as a kid in legal trouble or a draining illness. They could be in a position where a tax hike could cause them to have to sell off the main house or something.

The middle would generally be able to pay more taxes, but if they do, that often comes out of either retirement savings or consumer spending. Both would have a negative effect on the economy. That effect would be largely cumulative because it would involve so many people.

Really, the rich is the only class which can absorb much increased taxation with the least possible negative effect on the economy.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the government should learn to spend less, rather than tax more.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello and greetings Mott the Hoople,

(great band)



Totally agree.



True! As evidenced by growing extreme wealth inequality. The super-rich are in no danger of being 'taxed into poverty,' or having socialism 'cause them to stop working because it isn't worth it any more.'



Spot on. Consumerism drives the economy. As wealth inequality becomes greater, consumers have less to spend.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the key qualifier here is "use it or lose it" as people do have a right to their productive efforts. Our currency though belongs to the people and the only value any currency has is the trust and backing of the people, otherwise it's worthless as a medium of exchange, as currency by itself has no intrinsic value. In the past high marginal tax rates have been put in place for the wealthy with exemptions for those high rates if the money has been put into productive use (i.e. use it or lose it) which is not an unreasonable expectation from society that our currency be kept in circulation and used productively. Despite the criticisms of conservatives who (understandably) are trying to protect their economic privilege, some of those eras of high marginal tax rates have been some of our longest eras of sustained economic growth.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes. For several reasons. One is that progressive taxation is the only fair form of taxation. Mainly because the wealthy, benefit disproportionately from Government program. Historically governments have been kleptocracies that taxed the most productive members of society into poverty and redistribute that wealth to the upper classes. Religions primary social purpose has been to rationalize that kleptocracy to the people. With government primarily redistributing productive wealth upwards (despite the political rhetoric) than progressive taxation is the only truly fair form of taxation.

Secondly for a modern economy to be robust and healthy its currency must be kept in circulation so that it can perform its designed function. The wealthy tend to accumulate wealth then take it out of circulation with the end result the economy of that nation declines and less people have the opportunity to profit. So to keep our monetary system from stagnation higher rates of taxation, on a use it or lose it basis, of those who accumulate vast wealth and take it out of circulation is needed to keep our currency in circulation so it can perform its economic function.
Click to expand...

wouldn't it make better sense to put people in to elected offices who are not beholden to the upper classes and would actually make a fair tax rate for all without trickle up benefits?
 
alot of wealthy celebrities and their liberal mindsets of progressive taxation......

one of them just left your party.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markme...ook&utm_campaign=Citizens+for+Self-Governance

Rapper Cardi B is furious as April 15th draws near, and her profanity-laced Instagram post sums up how many Americans feel about the government taking our hard-earned money straight out of our wallets. The headline of her Instagram post was: “I want to f*cking know WHAT YA DOING WITH MY F*CKING MONEY !!!!!” The 25 year old rapper – who is from New York City, and who’s name is actually Belcalis Almanzar — believes the federal government and her state government are wasting her cash.

In the mega-viral rant, she says she’s paying 40% of her income in taxes, without any obvious return on her money. “When you donate to a kid in a foreign country, they give you updates on what they’re doing with your donation….I want updates on my tax money.”

Also, she believes the high taxes that her city imposes don’t actually do much either. “I’m from New York and the streets is always dirty, we was voted the dirtiest city in America,” she said. “There’s still rats in the trains.”

Plus, she doesn’t believe that the government is spending the money on crime either. “I know you’re not spending it on no damn prisons,” she said. “Cus y’all be giving n-gg-s like two underwears, one jumpsuit for like five months.”

Her message to the government is loud and clear. “What is you doing with my f***ing money? I want to know, I want receipts, I want everything … Uncle Sam I want to know what the f**k you’re doing with my f***ing money!”
 
Hello Mott the Hoople,

Mott the Hoople said:
Keep in mind the key qualifier here is "use it or lose it" as people do have a right to their productive efforts. Our currency though belongs to the people and the only value any currency has is the trust and backing of the people, otherwise it's worthless as a medium of exchange, as currency by itself has no intrinsic value. In the past high marginal tax rates have been put in place for the wealthy with exemptions for those high rates if the money has been put into productive use (i.e. use it or lose it) which is not an unreasonable expectation from society that our currency be kept in circulation and used productively. Despite the criticisms of conservatives who (understandably) are trying to protect their economic privilege, some of those eras of high marginal tax rates have been some of our longest eras of sustained economic growth.
Click to expand...

Thinking back to the time often envisioned as when American 'was great again:' The 50's. Tax rates were very high, the economy was strong, the middle class was strong. One paycheck not only supported a family but allowed savings, health care, vacations, sick leave, etc, AND worker pensions were very common. We can't go back there, but we can certainly stand to tax the rich more and get our debt to GDP ration back in line.
 
Hello SmarterthanYou,

SmarterthanYou said:
wouldn't it make better sense to put people in to elected offices who are not beholden to the upper classes and would actually make a fair tax rate for all without trickle up benefits?
Click to expand...

Too idealistic. It is not the office holders as much as it is the system and the pressures they come under. We have to change the system.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Mott the Hoople,



Thinking back to the time often envisioned as when American 'was great again:' The 50's. Tax rates were very high, the economy was strong, the middle class was strong. One paycheck not only supported a family but allowed savings, health care, vacations, sick leave, etc, AND worker pensions were very common. We can't go back there, but we can certainly stand to tax the rich more and get our debt to GDP ration back in line.
Click to expand...

yes we can get back to affair life for all
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello SmarterthanYou,

Too idealistic. It is not the office holders as much as it is the system and the pressures they come under. We have to change the system.
Click to expand...

is the system corrupt? or is the people in charge of the system? if you keep eating foods that make you sick, do you take something to keep you from getting sick or do you stop eating those foods?

it's only too idealistic for people that can't break out of their established mode of left vs. right and the fears of the other side winning keeps you voting for the same disease.

it's time to change the people, not the system.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello SmarterthanYou,



Too idealistic. It is not the office holders as much as it is the system and the pressures they come under. We have to change the system.
Click to expand...

yes

take all the power out of a FEW hands


just what the founders planned


they hated huge oppressive corporations too


break them up and regulate them


then tax them at the correct levels


make sure elections are fair free and Democratic


then budget wisely


the amount you spend doiesnt matter if you do it wisely


you know


planning a return for your money spent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top