When they say it is fair to tax the rich more, what do they mean by fair?
I have no money so I am not a rich person but I always wondered why this is fair. I would like to make money someday so it does interest me.
When they say it is fair to tax the rich more, what do they mean by fair?
I have no money so I am not a rich person but I always wondered why this is fair. I would like to make money someday so it does interest me.
It is not fair. It is wrong.
They ought to just say "everyone is taxed 20%"
That way, rich pay more b/c they earn more.
BTW, it isn't that the rich are just taxed "more," they pay all the taxes.
It is wrong.
you must be kidding
That is what it seems like to me but why do I always here that it is fair for them to pay more. I was wondering if I was missing something. I am open to learning though I am quite slow.
sharper tool in the shed wrote:
you must be kidding
No not kidding but I am definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. Can you explain it to me simply? Thanks.
asdafdlsfgas wrote:
No not kidding but I am definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. Can you explain it to me simply? Thanks.
Don't worry about responding to his ad hominem attacks. He has not answer so he is attempting to insult you to project attention away from your question.
I guess the thought goes something like this: if you are poor or middle class, the vast majority of your resources go towards essential items--groceries, transportation, medical bills, insurance, mortgage.
If you are rich, the vast majority of your resources go to luxury items: investments, second homes, yachts, private schools.
It is fair to tax the rich at a higher percentage because they are less effected by the taxes that are imposed upon them. Raising taxes on the poor or middle class could cause someone to go into debt or lose their home. Raising taxes on the rich may mean the difference between having 10 million dollar when they die and 12 million dollars when they die.
*affected
person 1 has $20. person 2 has $4. they must raise $8 total in order to survive a snowstorm. who should pay the $8? 4 and 4? then person 2 is broke and cannot survive afterward. $8 and $0? then the rich are paying for everything which also isnt fair. what if person 1 had $1,000,000? then he should obviously pay for all of the snowstorm because what the hell else is he going to use the money for. change the variables all you want, there is no right answer to every scenario.
american politics in a nutshell: liberals and conservatives are both idiots for never realizing or admitting that usually each side can be correct in the right context.
No problem. I do not spell well, work manual labor, didn't go to college so I am no expert on the government and taxes and things like that. I was just wondering what I was missing. It seems I hear people on TV say it is fair for rich people to pay more. I am not against this but wondering what is meant by fair.
Like do they mean because they have money they should pay more. Like that would be the fair nice thing to do.
Or is it something more like they are getting some benefit from the US more than someone like me and they should pay for it.
Or is it something else?
The rich can bear more of the burden, if you tax the poor at the same rate as the rich they will most likely not be able to survive. Whether or not this is right is up for debate but that is the reason.
or what he said.
deleuze wrote:
I guess the thought goes something like this: if you are poor or middle class, the vast majority of your resources go towards essential items--groceries, transportation, medical bills, insurance, mortgage.
If you are rich, the vast majority of your resources go to luxury items: investments, second homes, yachts, private schools.
It is fair to tax the rich at a higher percentage because they are less effected by the taxes that are imposed upon them. Raising taxes on the poor or middle class could cause someone to go into debt or lose their home. Raising taxes on the rich may mean the difference between having 10 million dollar when they die and 12 million dollars when they die.
That is a fairly presumptuous "thought." How do you know where my money goes? Maybe taxing me more will put me in debt. Why should I be punished for being successful?
deleuze wrote:
I guess the thought goes something like this: if you are poor or middle class, the vast majority of your resources go towards essential items--groceries, transportation, medical bills, insurance, mortgage.
If you are rich, the vast majority of your resources go to luxury items: investments, second homes, yachts, private schools.
It is fair to tax the rich at a higher percentage because they are less effected by the taxes that are imposed upon them. Raising taxes on the poor or middle class could cause someone to go into debt or lose their home. Raising taxes on the rich may mean the difference between having 10 million dollar when they die and 12 million dollars when they die.
This is correct -- and by extension, this is good for the economy, which is good for the infrastructure that the rich rely on to get rich or maintain their wealth. So, when the rich pay a higher or progressive tax rate, they are simply paying their fair share as it relates to the overall benefits they receive from the infrastructure set up and maintained by our government.
By way of the lower tax rate that is now in place, the rich are getting a major discount on the infrastructure put in place and maintained by our government. Without that infrastructure, the rich would not be making the same wealth that they are making. There is a huge disparity between the rich and middle class regarding the amount of the infrastructure used and benefitted from -- the lower tax rate is, indeed, a gift to the rich.
Okay thank you some of you have posted. I can see what is meant by fair. I wish sometimes people in the government would just speak clearly.
any thinking people on here? wrote:
person 1 has $20. person 2 has $4. they must raise $8 total in order to survive a snowstorm. who should pay the $8? 4 and 4? then person 2 is broke and cannot survive afterward. $8 and $0? then the rich are paying for everything which also isnt fair. what if person 1 had $1,000,000? then he should obviously pay for all of the snowstorm because what the hell else is he going to use the money for. change the variables all you want, there is no right answer to every scenario.
american politics in a nutshell: liberals and conservatives are both idiots for never realizing or admitting that usually each side can be correct in the right context.
Why not tax them both 33%?
Candada wrote:That is a fairly presumptuous "thought." How do you know where my money goes? Maybe taxing me more will put me in debt. Why should I be punished for being successful?
I wasn't defending it, just articulating it.
This article, though it's a bit snarky, will answer some of your questions about whether raising taxes 3% on personal incomes over $250,000 will cause people to go into debt.
http://www.slate.com/id/2198806/This whole debate is kind of ludicrous, really. Our country is caught up in an argument about whether 1.9% of the population should pay 3% more in taxes. For an explanation, Google "Freud and Narcissism of Small Differences."
Fair and balanced wrote:
This is correct -- and by extension, this is good for the economy, which is good for the infrastructure that the rich rely on to get rich or maintain their wealth. So, when the rich pay a higher or progressive tax rate, they are simply paying their fair share as it relates to the overall benefits they receive from the infrastructure set up and maintained by our government.
By way of the lower tax rate that is now in place, the rich are getting a major discount on the infrastructure put in place and maintained by our government. Without that infrastructure, the rich would not be making the same wealth that they are making. There is a huge disparity between the rich and middle class regarding the amount of the infrastructure used and benefitted from -- the lower tax rate is, indeed, a gift to the rich.
Total bullshit. The nation's largest cost - by far - is made up of entitlement programs which serve the middle and lower classes. The rich do not benefit from this.
You are dead wrong.
Rich Guy says it ain`t fair no matter how you slice it and if you keep beating me up I am not going to hang with y'all anymoreThe tax laws explained in simple logic. But many will still never understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
asdafdlsfgas wrote:
When they say it is fair to tax the rich more, what do they mean by fair?
I have no money so I am not a rich person but I always wondered why this is fair. I would like to make money someday so it does interest me.
loch ness monster wrote:
The rich can bear more of the burden, if you tax the poor at the same rate as the rich they will most likely not be able to survive. Whether or not this is right is up for debate but that is the reason.
An economist would call this the "diminishing marginal utility" of a dollar.