[Darth DanaWhite]

The rich don't have any reason to help the poor.

The trust-fund babies and golddiggers don't care. And majority of the rich had to work for their money just like the poor, they just worked smarter by educating themselves and building companies. Would YOU give it away to people who didn't deserve it? They figure they're already paying taxes, sometimes a bigger percentage than the middle tax.

Also, they weren't given any hand-outs, so why should they give them. Whenever you're given something you didn't earn, you don't take it as seriously as if you earned it. I'd rather earn my way to being rich than it just being given to me.

[Snives823]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Sure, here's a reason. First, it's not a moral obligation. It's a political obligation. The rich aren't "morally" obligated to pay more. They are politically obligated to pay more because we have granted them a larger share of the total social wealth pursuant to our current legal regime. We have zero political obligation to do so. In fact, we have zero political obligation to keep the rich alive at all, much less let them live in the country. We do so because it has utility to the populace as a whole

"Flat tax" is irrelevant. It doesn't take care of your "moral" objection -- the rich are still paying more than poor people. You are just paying the same rate per dollar of income. But why is that somehow moral? Whence comes the universal human moral obligation to pay the flat tax, as opposed to a flat fee (say the exact same amount per year per citizen), or no tax, or 100% tax? Nowhere. It's silly to see it as a moral issue rather than a simple political choice, a means of structuring the total social capital allotted to each of us for various reasons.

But they are the ones who earned it. They were able to do it because of the system but so is everyone else. A flat tax is more fair because now the tax % is unbalanced. I would be happy to pay more as long as it is by percentage.

[Snives823]

Moral or Political I believe I have no obligation to you. I pay taxes for the roads too but why for the people to live everyday.

[Rona4489]

* If the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income.

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to rise. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). Some would claim that a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.

* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favor increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.[citation needed]

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.

* As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation).

Copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page on the reasons for implementation of progressive taxes.

[AznTrojan]

flat tax ftw!

[Snives823]

Originally Posted by Rona4489

Copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page on the reasons for implementation of progressive taxes.

so because wikipedia says some supporters, and it is argued about all that shit makes it an argument? how about your own damn opinion instead some wiki bs. wikipedia is not a valid source by the way.

[Snives823]

Originally Posted by Rona4489

* As income levels rise, levels of consumption tend to rise. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.

* It is also argued that people with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in disposable income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument). Some would claim that a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without it causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes.

* Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments.

* Some supporters of progressive taxation favor increasing taxes on middle class tax-payers, who have inelastic household budgets.[citation needed]

* A progressive tax is an automatic stabilizer in the sense that if a person were to suffer a decrease in wages due to a recession then the money regained by being in a lower tax bracket lessens this blow.

* It is inherent in tax policy that it implements economic and social policy. People who are concerned about a runaway, cancerous character in the global economy, greenhouse gases, etc., see benefits in progressive taxation, both in its braking effect on the economy and in helping shape economic activities towards necessities more effectively than purely monetary or fiscal policies.

* As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation). .

Rich people spending and consuming more helps the economy.

This is the part I hate. Because you go to college or start a business and earn more you should pay half or even more of your earnings in taxes to supplement adult 7-11 employees wasting their lives.

I have no problem paying for defense and infrastructure and a flat tax guarantees I pay more than others but it's still a fair percentage.

I don't agree with raising taxes for anyone, and the middle class can't afford it I do understand that.

This is based on the economy and is situational, but we are in a recession now and if everyone paid 15% in taxes then what is the difference if they are paying 15% now?

People who amass wealth generally do it in stocks and not in cash. Stocks fund businesses and create more jobs. It's not like Warren Buffet has 62billion in his checking account. That money is out there he just owns the right to cash it out if he chooses. People trying to make money invest in building new businesses and help the country. Governments piss money away, just look at our military. FINANCIALLY speaking a private army would be much more cost effective than a state run army.

So if my goal is to make millions a year but I just pay more as I go where is the added incentive. This will take incentive away. If reaching goals were easier people would set them higher and create more wealth that will be invested in something. No billionarres made their money by saving it in a bank account.

[CJF]

Your moral obligation is to keep paying for the poor or else they will gang up and shoot your ass.

[Rona4489]

Originally Posted by Snives823

so because wikipedia says some supporters, and it is argued about all that shit makes it an argument? how about your own damn opinion instead some wiki bs. wikipedia is not a valid source by the way.

No need to be an ass about it.

The reason the rich pay higher taxes is because there are a lot more poor and middle class than rich in this country. The main goal of nearly every politician is to get reelected. The best way to get re/elected is to please the most people possible. So it's a no brainier for the politicians to side with the lower class, hence the progressive tax we have today. Don't like it, too bad because democracy is majority rule, and the majority is poor.

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by Snives823

If we all live in a camp and we all get equal farm land, but I stay awake longer and work harder should I have to give my extra food to the people who just do enough to get by, or to the ones who do nothing at all.

I very highly doubt that you are actually working much longer than your employees or getting by on less sleep than them if you are even working at all. Most business owners work much less than their employees because they can get away with it. As long as they own the business and their employees are working they pretty much just sit by and collect checks, thats kind of the whole point of woning a business. Of course they always say they work harder and longer than everyone else and say they do things "that normal people cant" but thats just to cover their ass, most don't do shit, because labor doesn't pay, capital does and its mostly inherited.

Ever heard the phrase "working mans a sucker"?

Originally Posted by Snives823

It is our personal responsibility to provide for our families, and why should Bill Gates be punished with higher taxes when he provided enough that his family will never have to worry/work again. Anyone here has an equal oppurtunity to start a business like he and I have, but so many people do not do it.

Lol Bill Gates stole a GUI off of a couple hippies and then had a prior arrangement to sell it to IBM. He basically was in the right place at the right time and fucked over people to make his money. And in case you don't know check out Gates' family and upbringing he didn't exactly grow up in a ghetto. His family was upper middle class so he had opportunities that a large portion of us do not.

Originally Posted by Snives823

I pay each of my employees enough to maintain an apartment and to get around off work okay, but if I had lower taxes and I didn't pay 15% to social programs on top of each check they would make more and I could pass on more of my savings. If you lowered taxes I could raise my minimum and maximum wages easily.

Yeah thats what all business owners say, if they didn't have to pay taxes they would pay their employees more and lower prices, yet corporate taxes are at an all-time low and we still need a Congressional Act to raise the MW because most people, like you, decide in their head that they should get paid not 5X but 10X what their employees make "just coz they deserve it" and pocket the money.

Originally Posted by Snives823

Give me one good reason I have to pay more taxes than any of you.

Because yo benefit more from the system which allows you to maintain your business, such as lower business tax rates, lower capital gains rates, etc. A system that allows you to mass a fortune by sitting on your ass while other actually have to work and contribute. If you operate in the US for instance, you can pay your employees the lowest wage rates in the developed world and pocket the rest. When it comes to things taxes have to be levied on such as the military its only natural to tax yo more because 1. you have alot more money, and 2. you benefit more form the defense provided by the military and police.

Originally Posted by Snives823

Why do you disagree with a flat tax to be fair and balanced?

Because it takes alot to maintain a country and rich dick bags benefit the most from it. I have no sympathy for some lazy rich dick bag who doesn't want to contribute to society but bitches about paying marginally higher tax rates case he cant afford a yacht or new plane.

Originally Posted by Snives823

A flat tax to pay for Military, Police, Fireman, and Infrastructure is okay with me, but taxes to pay for Welfare, Universal anything, and other socialist programs are totally unfair and unbalanced.

This is where you really shine. When you pay taxes to give everyone a chance to go to school to become an engineer or a lawyer, the whole society benefits including you. Just like when you pay into a Universal Health care program it helps everyone because everyone is healthy and can work and isnt in debt and so forth.

But of course this is like Chinese to you because all you have is "Me, me, me" on the brain so yo don't see the bigger picture.

Lol at Snipes "I think I should make 10X what my employees make coz 1. becasue i work 5x harder than everyone doing paperwork 2. Im cool 3. I give people jobs 4. Im cool 5. Im sexy"