"Tax the rich!" - The dumbest slogan ever.

Not just a dumb slogan, but a completely idiotic policy as well.

There have been some documentaries shown about the last US presidential election lately(and when I say lately, I mean "this spring"). A common theme among the Obama-supporters is that he wants to cut taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for "the rich".

To me, a European socialist commie-hippie, that's about as dumb as it gets.

They make it sound like the rich are some kind of money fountain that never empties, and we can just tap into it and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, reality is different. In any society with something that amounts to a welfare state, the most important aspect is the tax morale. People will have to see their taxes as just and appropriate, if not then they won't be paid. That goes for every layer of society; poor, rich and everyone in-between. The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will. But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.

Everyone should pay the same level of tax. If the tax level is 28%, then you should pay 28% whether you make 500.000 or 500.000.000 per year. It will probably be acceptable for everyone to lower the tax a little for those with low incomes, but those making around the average income in a country should pay the full tax - and those making more than that should pay the same.

If you want the government to fund new stuff, fine; but be aware that you are the one who's going to pay for it through taxes. You can't expect "the rich" to buy it for you.

Yeah. Taxe the poors in more efficient as they don't have opportunities to open bank accounts in fiscal paradise, or to pay financial advisers (if possible the wife of a minister) to evade to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Yeah. Taxe the poors in more efficient as they don't have opportunities to open bank accounts in fiscal paradise, or to pay financial advisers (if possible the wife of a minister) to evade to pay.

---

No, they have no money. Tax the working and middle classes. And tax the rich the same amount as everyone else.

You got it the wrong way, relative wealth. The poor need the money for essentials, the rich don't need money. So a rich person paying your hypothetical 28% is not the same as a poor person paying 28%. The 28% applied on the rich does not affect standard of living, while it does on the poor. This is resolved with what is called "progressive taxation". Also, there is the other factor that rich people on average pay a lesser percentage than the poor, due to the type of income they recieve and where it comes from. So while poorer classes recieve direct income from an employer. The rich generally don't. There are other examples where the rich constantly try fraud, tax evasion and tax havens.

When people also start earning more than £200,000 then it starts falling in the terrority of exploitation. That is over ten times the average wage, and the vast minority of the rich actually work less than those earning that average wage (cue: football players, actors, Johnathan Ross, etc) or simply inherited that wealth, or even have the influence over people doing the work, to give them large amounts of money. All that money could easily be used in different ways, such as lowering the costs to the consumers, or even giving a pay rise to those at the bottom.

Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.

You can either take a car away from 10 poor families, or a watch away from a rich man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You got it the wrong way, relative wealth. The poor need the money for essentials, the rich don't need money.

---

Actual need is quite irrelevant when it comes to whether a tax is seen as just. And when did the middle class become "poor"...? I can pay a few % more in tax without noticing it on my standard of living, just as I can pay less and not notice anything. Just like a rich guy. Hence, no reason why we shouldn't pay the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.

---

No, but we have plenty of stories of billionares who move to cyprus or some other tax haven.

And the bottom line is that taxing the rich isn't like finding Ali Baba's treasure; there really isn't that much money to collect. There is far more money in raising the tax for the middle class, due to their number.

Quote:

---

And the bottom line is that taxing the rich isn't like finding Ali Baba's treasure; there really isn't that much money to collect. There is far more money in raising the tax for the middle class, due to their number.

---

Of course, but that doesn't mean that progressive taxes are bad or even useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Of course, but that doesn't mean that progressive taxes are bad or even useless.

---

As I said, I support them up to around the average wage. But I firmly believe that the middle class should pay the same tax as the rich.

Progressive income taxes serve to really stick the bill onto the upper middle class. The rich can lobby/account/hide/obfuscate/purchase tax shelters so as to protect some of that nicely aged money of theirs. The professionals and those working hard to become rich are the ones most hammered by a progressive income tax.

If you want to tax wealth, tax wealth. If you want to tax income, Horetore is easily on the better track. Have a personal exemption of X for each individual on the tax return (amount determined as the minimum needed to prevent poverty level). Tax all remaining income at the same rate. Let's the go-getters build wealth and build the economy, doesn't unduly hammer the poor and/or ne'er-do-wells, and (by defining income fairly broadly but not double taxing on estates etc.) should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Either way, you don't hear stories about starving millionaires and billionaires.

---

Yes you do, but they are just actresses with eating disorders.

“No, they have no money” Yes they have. How do they pay their cigarettes and their alcohol…?
And there are more poor than rich. Thousand poor make one rich.

Bah, filthy capitalists and their evil ways. :smash:


Civilised societies have a progressive tax system.

Except for Norway, which has an infinte ATM in the North Sea and consequently has much lower personal taxation than the rest of Northwest Europe. The more I learn about Norway, the more I don't understand why the EU doesn't just send an expedionairy force to liberate it. Can't some Fins fly a few planes in some Brussels' highrises, that we have an excuse to invade Norway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.

---

You might think so, but that will never happen. They would just continue it.

As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without receiving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would well be on its on way of clearing its national debt. As after all, they could afford not to receive anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night, along with as if all the tax evaders were clean with their tax bills, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Except for Norway, which has an infinte ATM in the North Sea and consequently has much lower personal taxation than the rest of Northwest Europe.

---

Art thou insane?

The tax level for Norway is over 56.7%, according to this. Which beats the rest of Europe by a large margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

should serve to minimize tax evasion (legal and otherwise) by the rich.

---

Legal stuff won't ever reduce tax evasion by much; increasing tax morale is the only way. If people agree that their tax is appropriate, they will pay it. And people won't accept paying much more in taxes than others.

Horetore is right (yes, I'm sober). The middle class is where the money is. Tax them.

Edit: Wait? Did he just advocate a flat tax?! My man. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without recieving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would have cleared its national debt. As afterall, they could afford not to recieve anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night.

---

You are seriously underestimating America's debt, and seriously overestimating how rich people get paid. Wages are a pittance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

You are seriously underestimating America's debt, and seriously overestimating how rich people get paid. Wages are a pittance.

---

I think he means wealth; and no, he doesn't know much about the U.S.

Yes, Hore!

The tax system should be based on equity, not need. People above the poverty level should be taxed at the same rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, but we have plenty of stories of billionares who move to cyprus or some other tax haven.

---

Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Horetore is right (yes, I'm sober). The middle class is where the money is. Tax them.

Edit: Wait? Did he just advocate a flat tax?! My man. :thumbsup:

---

Not really....

I'm also a very big fan of deductables and added tax.... Ie. you can get a tax refund if you insulate your house better, which lowers your power need... But I am all in favour of taxing the hell out of you should you want to have heat cables in your driveway so you won't have to shuffle snow during the winter(yes, people do that.)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.

---

Then US billionares use some other method of dodging taxes. The end result remains the same, how they do it is irrelevant.

EDIT: And I very much doubt that people care about losing a Norwegian citizenship....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Then you should adopt the US tax code: US citizens are taxed on all of their earnings, even if they are made entirely overseas. Dodging US taxes by moving is impossible. The only way to do it is to renounce your US citizenship, and pretty much no one chooses to do that even with the very harsh ex-pat tax policy.

---

Didn't know the US did that, but I know Israel does. Britain doesn't, it only taxes on income earned domestically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Then US billionares use some other method of dodging taxes. The end result remains the same, how they do it is irrelevant.

---

Tell that to UBS and HSBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Tell that to UBS and HSBC.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I have no idea what you're talking about....

---

The US Department of Justice started going after major tax evaders by going after their banks. They started with UBS, who got slaughtered and took a huge loss over the scandal. It was so bad that the Swiss government had to give up trying to protect them:

Quote:

---

UBS paid a $780 million fine last year and admitted criminal wrongdoing in connection with offshore services sold to wealthy Americans through its private bank that allowed them to evade billions of dollars in taxes. Last month, the Swiss Parliament approved a final deal to hand over to the I.R.S. the details of 4,450 accounts used by wealthy Americans suspected of evading taxes.

---

Now the DoJ is doing the same thing to HSBC. (Link) The problem for the banks it that the value of their business (and the business of the countries that harbor them) in the US is far higher than the value of the business they get from hiding US tax evaders. The US government realized this recently and started tightening the screws. The banks can still hide the information if they want, but the US government will still fine them and confiscate their assets inside the US. Essentially, it just got a lot harder for US tax evaders, because now they need to find banks that are small enough that they don't care about doing business in the US... and there's not exactly a whole lot of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Art thou insane?

The tax level for Norway is over 56.7%, according to this. Which beats the rest of Europe by a large margin.

---

Nah, that's not really the most useful. For income taxes, check this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Norway is well below the other social paradises of Northwest Europe. Most Norwegians, except those in very high income brackets, pay a measly 28% income tax. If I'm a good boy and die and go to heaven, I'll only ever have to pay 28% income tax ever again. :bigcry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nah, that's not really the most useful. For income taxes, check this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Norway is well below the other social paradises of Northwest Europe. Most Norwegians, except those in very high income brackets, pay a measly 28% income tax. If I'm a good boy and die and go to heaven, I'll only ever have to pay 28% income tax ever again. :bigcry:

---

Yes, our income tax is much lower because we collect our tax in other ways.

EDIT: Why on earth you care about "income tax" is beyond me really.... The only thing that matters is the total amount of tax paid, and paid by who. Just how that tax is collected is completely irrelevant when comparing taxation between countries.

And Norway still beats all of you. Heck, a brit only pays two thirds of my tax....

Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:

No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:

No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:

---

Growing up, getting selfish, same thing under the eyes of everyone anti-tax.

I had my gf tell me after a day of working on a movie set that she was assigned to organizing and filing whatever the papers are called that deal with taxes for the crew working on the set. She noticed that one person was making $7,000 a week. The person was losing a little under half of it to taxes. My gf then proclaims **** taxes. Do people lose sight of what is going on here? 7,000 a week is $364,000 for a year. Take in account for a moment, that instead of a movie (which I believe usually has about 40-50ish days of on set working), the guy had a stable job with a steady year round paycheck. Half of that gone means the man is making 182,000 a year! This man is still making more then 90% of Americans and I get **** taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.

---

Eh? According to the Socialist doctrine, the State's objective is to equalize the wealth in its society, and that means narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. If everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate, the rich keep getting richer, while the poorer keep getting poorer in comparison. The classes purchase power therefore begins differing rapidly, and begins widening. A higher tax isn't neither unjust nor should be seen as a punishment (as you still make more money than poorer people regardless), and using exactly that same analogy would also show why the VAT is an unjust taxing policy. A State is about helping its citizens, and since the poorer don't have the means to earn what the rich can, then the State must tax the rich and use the funds as social transfers to level the field as best as possible for all its citizens. Anything otherwise is inherently unjust.

You're saying someone who lives on a minimum wage should give the same percentage of their earnings (Which are scarce and can barely pay all bills - if all of them - and still get through the month being fed properly and buying all the medicine they should, etc?) that of a rich banker who has absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying that amount of taxes or double that, and still go through the month paying for every luxury it wants and still have money to save? That system is inherently unjust.

No not selfish. Realistic.

If someone's worth is $7,000 a week then it's right he/she gets the correct renumeration. I have no problem with that. One of the faults of communism is that it takes away incentive. Why get a job as, say, an oil tanker captain and get paid the same as the bog cleaner?

As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.

Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.

---

Stealing? Damn, that means I must be a thief, or accessory to theft, as I'm studying across the country, going through college thanks to the Scholarship I get from the State, without which I could never study (Because I am in fact poor). I am most thankful to our thieving overlords, without whose thefts I could have never gotten the opportunities I have today.

Am I the only one caught off-guard by HoreTore being the one to start this thread? I kept waiting for the punch-line, but it never arrived...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No not selfish. Realistic.

If someone's worth is $7,000 a week then it's right he/she gets the correct renumeration. I have no problem with that. One of the faults of communism is that it takes away incentive. Why get a job as, say, an oil tanker captain and get paid the same as the bog cleaner?

As for taxes. My view is that it's a racket. Taking money from some people to give to oher people is, what's the word I'm struggling for here? Oh yes I remember, it's called stealing. When it involves punishment such as fines and imprisonment if you don't pay up....now your in Al Capone territory.

Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:

---

I was not arguing he should be paid less. I was simply annoyed at the sudden defiance towards taxes for having a man's standard of living not even drop.

The authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. We have all consented to be ruled by the government in charge of the region in which we reside through a social contract. Therefor, the actions of the government cannot be called stealing. If you feel you can not consent to the government due to its actions, then renounce your citizenship and reside under another government.

Comparing Al Capone to the government is absolutely nonsensical. AL Capone did not have the consent of the American people to rule over them and do as he judged should be done, the government does. Capone's actions violated people's rights since they did not consent to his actions whereas they have with the government. Everyone signs a social contract toward the government, Al Capone didn't have anyone sign any such contract to give him authority over their rights.

Money is power. Power corrupts. The more money you have, the stronger the corruption presses against you.

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

---

You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.

It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.

Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have less then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.

This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png

EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...opy-challenge/

EDIT: ****, I made a really bad typo. Sasaki quoted me before I fixed the typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ironically, it seems that it is only those at the top who finally break through the mentality of constantly "needing/hording more" money since you can't really admit to yourself that you need more money when you only have more then 1 or 2 other people in the entire world. See Bill Gates with his foundation, and more importantly Warren Buffet who has pledged 99% of his wealth to charity when he dies.

This is why (Warren Buffet) is giving it all away in his own words:
https://i.imgur.com/xuMqS.png

EDIT: Really, really related. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...opy-challenge/

---

Perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You signed it when you decided to live within the confines of the governments region of control and participate in government affairs by voting. Try to convince others that you feel there should be less taxation and change the government or move. Don't complain that the government is Al Capone because you are too lazy to pick up and move and because the rest of the country disagrees with you on the amount of taxation.

It's just like Republicans saying that Obama is a tyrant simply because he won the election and is now implementing policies that Republicans disagree with.

---

Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.

Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:

You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Really? There was I thinking that a contract had to be entered into voluntarily for it to have force under the law. Oh and it has to be witnessed. So just to be clear here. Because I didn't sign this contract, it was foisted on me, presumably as a child, which in itself makes it illegal as a minor cannot sign contracts, I'm still bound by it.

Novel thinking to say the least. :dizzy2:

You got me banged to rights on the lazy bit though. :laugh4:

---

You have entered it voluntarily. I could type a long paragraph, but this sentence from wikipedia's article on Social Contract will do:
To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon"

You have throughout your life willingly agreed to sacrifice ultimate freedom (including the ability to kill another) in order to gain civil rights (the right to not be murdered) under the authority of the government. You consented to the social contract since you have made use of the government's benefits toward you and have followed societies laws. You accepted responsibility.

The real question here is who is using horetores computer?

200000 isn't as much as you think it is beskar.

My monies on Dev Dave. :laugh4:

Hmmm, if it really isn't HoreTore using his account then I hope he forgives me for calling him a weak fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will.

---

This is more properly known as "going Galt". It has never happened here and no evidence exists to suggest that it ever will. Hope that helps.

Also I'm throwing my hat in with the "this can't be HoreTore" crowd.

fake edit: Oh come on. I know HoreTore understands progressive taxation and how intrinsic it is to western society. This can't be him.

I have firmly decided, that the post is HoreTore and that tomorrow he will ridicule us all for believing his complete 180 turn on his beliefs. Calling his trolling out now so I don't have to count myself as a victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I'm sorry I signed no such social contract with any government, let alone mine.

---

You're British, a subject to a crown, nobody asked nor needed you to sign anything. :smash:



Which I guess at least makes for a good excuse, unlike other countries where supposedly the people really do are in charge...

Actually since 1983 I've also been a citizen. No one ask me to sign owt then either. :book:

As for being a subject, never had a problem with it. We tolerate Madge, no more no less. Beats having a Bush/Sarkozy/Hitler in charge.

Yeh got a Godwin in. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:

No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:

---

I've always felt this way, IA ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Eh? According to the Socialist doctrine, the State's objective is to equalize the wealth in its society, and that means narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. If everyone is taxed at exactly the same rate, the rich keep getting richer, while the poorer keep getting poorer in comparison. The classes purchase power therefore begins differing rapidly, and begins widening. A higher tax isn't neither unjust nor should be seen as a punishment (as you still make more money than poorer people regardless), and using exactly that same analogy would also show why the VAT is an unjust taxing policy. A State is about helping its citizens, and since the poorer don't have the means to earn what the rich can, then the State must tax the rich and use the funds as social transfers to level the field as best as possible for all its citizens. Anything otherwise is inherently unjust.

---

I am all in favour of wealth redistribution. I do not, however, believe that a simple tax is the best way of achieving that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

You're saying someone who lives on a minimum wage should give the same percentage of their earnings (Which are scarce and can barely pay all bills - if all of them - and still get through the month being fed properly and buying all the medicine they should, etc?) that of a rich banker who has absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying that amount of taxes or double that, and still go through the month paying for every luxury it wants and still have money to save? That system is inherently unjust.

---

Try reading what I've been saying one more time.

I've said that everyone making the average wage and more should pay the same. Those making below that should pay less. Because let's face it, once you're making the average wage, you're perfectly capable of paying your bills.



Just to clarify:

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

---

Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Meh, I'm not going to try to change your opinion on that. Time will do that for me ~:)

---

How so? I'm already of the class I'm proposing to burn... And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

Fair enough. Luckily I have skills that are wanted the world over. Of course money is not the only factor, but it forms part of the "quality of life" equation. If the soaking of my wage becomes too detrimental then I'll review whether relocating is worth it. A flat tax would make this far more equitable however.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Just to clarify:

I'm still all about helping the poor financially. I'm just all in favour of emptying the pockets of the middle class too ~;)

---

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Of course some taxation is necessary but punitive taxation is counter productive. I'm so pleased the scales have fallen from HoreTores eyes as he now advocates a flat rate tax. Good lad :thumbsup:

---

Why are so many people equating high taxation with flat taxation? Saying that punitive taxation is counter productive is not the same as saying that progressive taxes are bad/good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

---

Nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How so?

---

Oh, receiving an "invitation" to pay your property tax right after you just bought furniture for the room of the soon expected firstborn, paid your car insurance, vehicle tax and the monthly electricity, gas and telephone bills, kinda helps to shift you from "As a noble follower of the noble communist ideals, I'd love to pay more taxes." to "Bloody thieves!" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves.

---

Pay with what? The crumbles that are left over after the thieves have gotten their share?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

---

Unless you're the government. Then you have a magic pot called "taxpayers".

EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.

EDIT2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And I'm very happy to pay my taxes, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I'm perfectly capable of paying more in taxes.

---

This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

So you plan to help the poor by turning the middle class into poor. I see.

---

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

---

We all need health care, we all need roads, we all need culture, we all need education, etc etc etc

INt he UK the government keeps trying to narrow the rich / poor divide:

Education: rich parents probably spend more time with their children, talk to them more, get them more interested in the world / didn't drink / smoke during pregnancy. Solution? More money for schools that have poor children. Failing that, discriminate against people with rich parents at university
Health: you die younger when you're poorer. Mainly due to drinking, smoking, no exercise and overeating. Solution? Throw money at campaigns to try to get these people to do what's plainly obvious.
More wealthy: higheer wages for menial jobs. Low productivity? So what?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is my firm belief, that if we want something done in this country, then we, the working and middle class, will have to pay for it ourselves. There is no magic pot of gold that will pay for everything we want.

---

Question: If the working and middle need to pay for their government programs. Why is it that you have decided that just because they pay 30% and the rich pay 50% that their contribution is not a "fair" share. Why is it that in order for the money that they put in to be a "fair" amount, has to be an equal percentage to the share that a rich person puts in?

So when the average man pays his 30% of the national median salary of $44,389 and ends up with $31,072, he now has to feed his family (lets say 4 including him) with the equivalent of 1.41 times the poverty line for a family of 4 ($20,050) instead of about 2 times the national poverty line.

The the rich man who makes lets say...7 grand a week or $384,000, will pay this flat 30% and make off with $268,800. He now has to feed his family of 4 with 13.4 times the poverty line instead of 19.15 times the poverty line.

Can we honestly say that if we are to take <1 as starving that the family who gets sent from 2 to 1.41 is impacted just the same as the family sent from 19.15 to 13.4? Really guys?

EDIT: Used American numbers and statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That's a gross over-simplification given that 'rich' and 'poor' are relative concepts. Further, the projects that HoreTore proposes would help both classes. Essentially taking their wealth to give them services that they now don't need that wealth for.

---

That is completely ridiculous. The middle class feel strained economically as well at least in the United States. The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc. When you take more money from them in taxes, you might be providing them health care and all these other good things we all need, but then they have to further stretch their dollar further and cut back on TV, other forms of entertainment, and cannot eat out so they can continue to live in their house with electricity and heating and all those other essentials to survive. The standard of living had dropped dramatically for them, they may not be starving but they are pushed closer to the limit of being self sustainable and losing everything (especially if a recession hit and they lost their job) and they begin to serve a life of servitude, where they work to survive, they work to pay the bills for the private "thieves" as someone put it and the government "Al Capones" as someone else put it. They may not be starving, but they are nevertheless reduced to economic slavery of working nonstop in order to feed the beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

EDIT: and what's all your talk about a tax rate of 28 %? What paradise do you live in? In Belgium, you don't have to earn a fortune to fall in the 50 % income tax scale. And then you have social security: 16,5 % of your salary + your employer pays an additional 33 % of your salary. Highest VAT rate here is 21 %. And then you have property tax, insurance tax, vehicle tax and all kinds of silly taxes and what not.

---

It's just a number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

This got to be the most hilarious statement I ever read :laugh4:

---

....And it's actually completely true!

I'm actually very happy to pay my taxes. I actually feel that my money is spent wisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The middle class in America must pay large amounts of money for utility bills, credit card bills, etc.

---

Lolz! The people who are dumb enough to have credit card bills should be forced to pay at least 90% of their income in taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Lolz! The people who are dumb enough to have credit card bills should be forced to pay at least 90% of their income in taxes.

---

Well, I can't say I disagree that there are many people who are stupid when it comes to handling credit cards...but I wouldn't punish them further, the bills do that for them. I hope I get to put off getting a credit card as long as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Well, I can't say I disagree that there are many people who are stupid when it comes to handling credit cards...but I wouldn't punish them further, the bills do that for them. I hope I get to put off getting a credit card as long as possible.

---

There isn't a single person on this planet who needs a credit card.

Just create a savings account and place around 1.5 to 2 times your monthly salary in it, and you'll have enough cash for any situation.

Credit cards do have useful functions. They are accepted where other cards aren't e.g. abroad, some exam boards refused debit dards - no idea why. Goods bought on them often have automatic insurance - if the company you booked the flight with goes down you can claim back the money - but not on a debit card. Some give back points / money.

So I have one mainly for emergencies. I can't envisage what those emergencies are, as if I could odds are I could stop them form happening. I called up the company and pay 100% off every month by direct debit from my bank account. So, unless I somehow charge thousands of pounds to the credit card without remembering I will never pay any fees on it.

Speaking of ignorance on credit, a survey in the UK showed that a significant number of people thought that the bigger the APR the better! That might explain a company that was advertising on TV with an apr of slightly over 2,900%...

~:smoking:

Try renting a car without a credit card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Blimey I agree with HoreTore. I'm going to have a lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head! :sweatdrop: :shame: :laugh4:

No wait! I realise now that he's just growing up. :laugh4:

---

Wow. Busy thread.

He is, but his ideology will bind him to his current thinking. This thread will likely confirm biases and prevent any real maturation.

Credit cards can also be used responsibly. I have never carried a balance on my credit cards, but I use them for almost all of my purchases. I just don't buy anything I cannot afford at that exact moment and I pay off my balance in full every month. Doing that, a credit card actually saves me money because I get cash back on all my credit card puchases, so all my purchases are cheaper than they would be if I paid with cash, check, or debit card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Not just a dumb slogan, but a completely idiotic policy as well.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There have been some documentaries shown about the last US presidential election lately(and when I say lately, I mean "this spring"). A common theme among the Obama-supporters is that he wants to cut taxes for the middle class and raise taxes for "the rich".

To me, a European socialist commie-hippie, that's about as dumb as it gets.

They make it sound like the rich are some kind of money fountain that never empties, and we can just tap into it and live happily ever after. Unfortunately, reality is different. In any society with something that amounts to a welfare state, the most important aspect is the tax morale. People will have to see their taxes as just and appropriate, if not then they won't be paid. That goes for every layer of society; poor, rich and everyone in-between. The rich simply will not accept paying too high taxes, and if you try to make them, they have the money to leave the country easily - which they will. But that's really quite irrelevant, because the real issue is that taxing rich people harder than everyone else simply isn't just. A higher tax will be seen as a punishment, and we shouldn't punish someone for making a lot of money.

Everyone should pay the same level of tax. If the tax level is 28%, then you should pay 28% whether you make 500.000 or 500.000.000 per year. It will probably be acceptable for everyone to lower the tax a little for those with low incomes, but those making around the average income in a country should pay the full tax - and those making more than that should pay the same.

If you want the government to fund new stuff, fine; but be aware that you are the one who's going to pay for it through taxes. You can't expect "the rich" to buy it for you.

---

Did I wake up in some strange alternate universe?

Quote:

---

As for Ali Baba's treasure, if the top few went without receiving a wage for a year and gave it all to the government, then the USA would well be on its on way of clearing its national debt. As after all, they could afford not to receive anything for a year and it would save the American economy almost over-night, along with as if all the tax evaders were clean with their tax bills, etc.

---

There's so much wrong with this, but I'll just focus on one thing. If you took billions (trillions?) of dollars out of the economy, how would that 'save the economy'? It'd mean unemployment for everyone making goods or providing services that would have otherwise been bought by the rich.

CR

Flat rate tax? :laugh4:

You may laugh but the consensus in the 70s was that a very high tax rate would garner the amount of money to fund government spending plans. When in fact the opposite is true. A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You may laugh but the consensus in the 70s was that a very high tax rate would garner the amount of money to fund government spending plans. When in fact the opposite is true. A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.

---

I never said I favoured low taxes....

To be fair IA never stated that you did.

I personally would like the level of tac to be determined as to what benefits the economy most. I personally think that this would be in the low 20's, but I have only an amateur's interest in the subject.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

A flat rate tax would reward those with the gumption to start a business and crucially employ people. That's why I favour it.

---

???

There's enough reward for someone to start a business anyway. A little thing called profits. Not many people have the know-how, capital and drive to create a successful business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

To be fair IA never stated that you did.

I personally would like the level of tac to be determined as to what benefits the economy most. I personally think that this would be in the low 20's, but I have only an amateur's interest in the subject.

~:smoking:

---

Gotta spend money to make money.

That applies to taxes and governments too...

Although this can be true, governments can also waste money and constrain growth whilst spending money.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Although this can be true, governments can also waste money and constrain growth whilst spending money.

~:smoking:

---

....And a drunken oil trader can make the oil price skyrocket because he was trading oil while :daisy:faced....

That reminds me, if this was an alternative universe under Socialism. I could easily advocate 0% income tax. But under the current capitalist system, progressive taxation is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That reminds me, if this was an alternative universe under Socialism. I could easily advocate 0% income tax. But under the current capitalist system, progressive taxation is the way to go.

---

What's the point? You're never going to be able to tax the rich hard enough to actually get some real money, nor will it be sufficient to lower the gap between rich and poor.

There are more clever ways to reach that goal than the tax system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Credit cards can also be used responsibly. I have never carried a balance on my credit cards, but I use them for almost all of my purchases. I just don't buy anything I cannot afford at that exact moment and I pay off my balance in full every month. Doing that, a credit card actually saves me money because I get cash back on all my credit card puchases, so all my purchases are cheaper than they would be if I paid with cash, check, or debit card.

---

Here, here!

I don't like the idea that credit card use is necessarily unhealthy. I've used a credit card for the majority of my financial interactions for the last decade. I have yet to pay a penny in interest. You can't beat the convenience, security, and breadth of acceptance of a credit card.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Here, here!

I don't like the idea that credit card use is necessarily unhealthy. I've used a credit card for the majority of my financial interactions for the last decade. I have yet to pay a penny in interest. You can't beat the convenience, security, and breadth of acceptance of a credit card.

Ajax

---

I have yet to visit a place that does not accept my Visa card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There are more clever ways to reach that goal than the tax system.

---

Hence the alternative universe under Socialism.