Why Do We Get Onto the Rich About Taxes?

[Dawnhammer]

You may not make as much as the top 1%, but there's nothing wrong with being in the top 50%.

So everyone will be on top 50% if they work hard enough ?

You see the flaw on this logic as well ?

 

[Aldebaran]

So everyone will be on top 50% if they work hard enough ?

You see the flaw on this logic as well ?

No. Not everyone can be in any one place. If every person in America made 1 million dollars a year, but there was 100 people who made even a dollar less, they would be considered the bottom of all wage earners.

It's all relative. And relative to 50 years ago, anyone making even $15,000 per year today has a much higher quality of life. We need to quit being envious of what others have.

 

[Dawnhammer]

If every person in America made 1 million dollars a year, but there was 100 people who made even a dollar less, they would be considered the bottom of all wage earners.

Exactly, so no matter how hard everyone worked everybody couldn’t be at the top.

Also if everyone was rich who would do the less paying jobs?

Before we get the robots to do our work there will always be poor no matter how hard they work.

 

[Aldebaran]

Exactly, so no matter how hard everyone worked everybody couldn’t be at the top.

Also if everyone was rich who would do the less paying jobs?

Before we get the robots to do our work there will always be poor no matter how hard they work.

I think "poor" is the relative term. In the example I gave, those 100 people who make a dollar less than everyone who makes 1 million dollars would be the ones who are "poor". But they'd be very well off indeed. So today, a wage of $15,000 a year compared to someone who made a good amount more (adjusted for inflation) 100 or so years ago really does have it made. Maybe not when they compare themselves to those alive today making $100,000 or more, but that's why it's all relative. We need to be thankful for what we have rather than compare ourselves to others.

 

[Babe Ruth]

Maybe glorifying them isn't the answer, but neither is making them out to be villians that must be punished as if they are the problem..

Amen.
And sometimes I think resentful & envious people misinterpret the glorification of material success in America. Celebrating someone who gets rich, isn't always about glorifying their wealth. It's about cheering for people who have worked hard, changed (and/or overcome) their circumstances, create brighter futures for their kids, etc.

It's uplifting seeing people 'make it' y'know.. (Just another take)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So everyone will be on top 50% if they work hard enough ?

You see the flaw on this logic as well ?

There's nothing wrong with being in the bottom 50 % either, if you have enough. It's the huge disparity in income and wealth that have people freaked out. Keep the 'percentiles' but lessen the disparity and all will be well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly, so no matter how hard everyone worked everybody couldn’t be at the top.

Also if everyone was rich who would do the less paying jobs?

Before we get the robots to do our work there will always be poor no matter how hard they work.

The poor don't have to stay poor, and usually don't. Poorness is a temporary state for most (the 'generationally poor' usually have only themselves to blame). Picture income and wealth as people on an escalator; on at the bottom, off at the top. Problem is that too many don't see the escalator of wealth moving up. They see it as a crowded staircase with no one moving.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It isn't always quite that easy.

No it isn't, but well worth the time and effort.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't have a problem with people having money. I have a problem with glorifying wealth and glorifying the wealthy.

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets." - Luke 6:24-26

-CryptoLutheran

I assume you are referring to such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as well?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly, if everyone worked hard for it then everybody would be on the top 1% and multi billionaire......

Oh wait, this logic has some holes in it.

Lots of holes. Mainly that most people are quite content with what the earn and what they have. It's that segment of whiners and complainers (and political opportunists) that are making all the noise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I assume you are referring to such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates as well?

Again, I said that I don't have a problem with someone having money, my problem is with the glorification of wealth and the wealthy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hieronymus]

I have a 'problem' with people owning more than hmmm.... let's say, 10 million ?
It's ridiculous i.m.h.o.

[edit]
more than 3 million is already ridiculous actually, i.m.h.o.
[/edit]

 

[jardiniere]

Without the rich and the big corporations everyone would be poor. They are the movers and shakers that keep the money and the economy moving. God bless the rich!

I've heard this all my life. What I still don't know though is, is this true? Do some really have to be rich? Is is possible for no one to be rich, but still have a vibrant and growing economy? I've often wondered if it is actually the case that some have to be rich. If there were more wealth spread around, it seems to me, then there would be more people able to dream up more things to make with that money, whereas if it's concentrated in fewer hands, there will be fewer minds able to create new things with that money for society. Corporations tend to focus on limited areas and become experts. The rich people running those companies might be quite creative within that area.

But put more people in a more financially comfortable spot, and it may be that there will be a far greater blooming of the economy, with more minds able to think of creative things for the society, rather than simply using their energy to make ends meet.

I don't know, but it's something I've wondered at each time I read we would be nowhere good if we didn't have fabulously wealthy people. I've wondered if it's just a holdover from the ages of kings, emperors, and monopolies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've heard this all my life. What I still don't know though is, is this true? Do some really have to be rich? Is is possible for no one to be rich, but still have a vibrant and growing economy? I've often wondered if it is actually the case that some have to be rich. If there were more wealth spread around, it seems to me, then there would be more people able to dream up more things to make with that money, whereas if it's concentrated in fewer hands, there will be fewer minds able to create new things with that money for society. Corporations tend to focus on limited areas and become experts. The rich people running those companies might be quite creative within that area.

But put more people in a more financially comfortable spot, and it may be that there will be a far greater blooming of the economy, with more minds able to think of creative things for the society, rather than simply using their energy to make ends meet.

I don't know, but it's something I've wondered at each time I read we would be nowhere good if we didn't have fabulously wealthy people. I've wondered if it's just a holdover from the ages of kings, emperors, and monopolies.

Distributing money won't change human nature. Some are gifted, most are not. Most are lazy at worst, complacent at best, although I don't believe most are even aware of this.

Without the massing of capital large capital projects wouldn't get done. Look at the third world for example, which largely lacks the needed infrastructure that large capital projects would provide.

It is large capital projects that provide opportunity for skilled jobs as well. Without regard to the trickled down of money look at the hierarchy of jobs, from planning to manning a shovel, involved in large capital projects, projects funded by accumulated public and private money.

Capitalism doesn't equal "screw the little guy", it means that projects larger than the individual is capable of can be accomplish for the benefit of all, from employment opportunities to the infrastructure itself.

Also it is the variety of skills needed for capital projects that largely drives the educational system; providing an educated workforce for a modern society. People are separated into economic classes, layers if you will, by their abilities, education, motivation, etc. There is equality of opportunity but how high each person will rise depends on other human factors, factors that cannot be changed.

In America each person has the ability to fashion the life of their choosing within their individual capabilities. They just have to overcome the ideas and attitudes that hinder them.

 

[Belk]

It seems everywhere I look these days, the left is constantly wanting new entitlements. When those of us on the right say we can't afford that stuff, we're told that we just need to increase taxes on the wealthy.

"They just need to pay their fair share!" they say, as if the rich aren't paying enough. But that doesn't match up with reality.

In fact, the top 40% of earners in this country pay 106% of the taxes! The bottom 40% pay -9%. Yes, you read that right. NEGATIVE NINE PERCENT!

Those on the top tax bracket paid 69% of all the taxes.



Top 40% paying ALL income taxes, and leaving a tip

The reason why the lower 40% pay negative taxes is the tax credits and other benefits they get from the government. So, I'm wondering, as a capitalist who believes people should get to keep more of what they earn, why we need to keep placing an even larger and larger burden on those who the money and are already keeping everything afloat as it is.

We already have many entitlements, grants, and tax breaks for those making less. Why do we need to keep giving them more and more?

Why am I, an upper middle class individual, taxed for a higher percentage of my income then those who are very well off?

 

[Aldebaran]

Amen.
And sometimes I think resentful & envious people misinterpret the glorification of material success in America. Celebrating someone who gets rich, isn't always about glorifying their wealth. It's about cheering for people who have worked hard, changed (and/or overcome) their circumstances, create brighter futures for their kids, etc.

It's uplifting seeing people 'make it' y'know.. (Just another take)

Yes indeed! When I see someone who has been successful, I see someone who has done what it takes, worked hard, and stuck to it until they reached their goal and is now enjoying the fruits of their labor as a result. I commend those people and would like to be as one of them. But when I keep hearing about " The Rich", it seems that it's perceived that a person suddenly becomes evil based on the amount of money they have, and are marginalized into a class of their own that's to be despised.

 

[Noxot]

yeah the military budget is huge but there probably won't be enough money to solve the growing diabetes problem for everyone and so they might think about taking care of themselves as much as they can via actually trying to be healthy.

 

[Sketcher]

Probably because they can better afford to pay it.

Now, I'm very much a capitalist and I don't care very much about income inequality. If millionaires and billionaires live in extreme luxury, then good for them. But when my taxes go up, I don't see a need for that when they can clearly afford to pay the difference more easily and probably not notice.

 

[Aldebaran]

Probably because they can better afford to pay it.

Now, I'm very much a capitalist and I don't care very much about income inequality. If millionaires and billionaires live in extreme luxury, then good for them. But when my taxes go up, I don't see a need for that when they can clearly afford to pay the difference more easily and probably not notice.

What would their fair share be? If a poorer person made $20,000 a year and paid $200 in taxes, and the rich person made one million dollars a year and paid $10,000 in taxes, do you think that's fair, or do you think the rich person should pay more than that?

 

[Sketcher]

What would their fair share be? If a poorer person made $20,000 a year and paid $200 in taxes, and the rich person made one million dollars a year and paid $10,000 in taxes, do you think that's fair, or do you think the rich person should pay more than that?

That's not really defined anywhere, I think there's flexibility and that the wider the scope of people, the harder it is to come with a meaningful poverty line. What that extends to is that it is harder to define "rich." What is very well off in terms of dollars in many parts of the country would not be well off in New York City. And not all of the rich are equally rich. Upper middle class to me is "rich," but upper middle class in New York City is likely a lot less than hundreds of millions, let alone billions of dollars a year. If you're making $500 million, you can afford more than someone making $1 million, it's common sense. As to how much to tax certain people or incomes specifically, I don't have an answer to that.