Why Do We Get Onto the Rich About Taxes?

[FireDragon76]

They condemn everyone regardless of economic status.

How can you be certain of that? Do you personally know everyone's sins?

You are using religious platitudes to justify oppression of the poor, all I'm pointing out is that the Bible can be understood differently.

 

[FireDragon76]

When the rich fulfill the rest of the Mosaic law, then we can talk about how the poor are sinful for coveting. In the Bible, God shows a clear preference for the poor.

 

[Sketcher]

How can you be certain of that? Do you personally know everyone's sins?

It condemns everyone who commits those sins regardless of economic station. I'm just telling you what the verses say - everyone who envies will be judged for it. I don't have to personally know everyone's, or every rich person's, or every poor person's sins to say that. Sin is a tricky beast, people can get twisted up in it and not realize it, wherever in life they may be.

You are using religious platitudes to justify oppression of the poor, all I'm pointing out is that the Bible can be understood differently.

I'm not justifying the oppression of anyone. Just pointing out that the left-wing message has its share of false virtue.

 

[Sketcher]

When the rich fulfill the rest of the Mosaic law, then we can talk about how the poor are sinful for coveting. In the Bible, God shows a clear preference for the poor.

Not Biblically correct, see Leviticus 19:15 where God utterly condemns any sort of preference based on economic station.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not Biblically correct, see Leviticus 19:15 where God utterly condemns any sort of preference based on economic station.

Jeremiah 6:13 as well.

 

[Dave-W]

Not Biblically correct, see Leviticus 19:15 where God utterly condemns any sort of preference based on economic station.

Jeremiah 6:13 as well.

James 2.1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well, I often think about it like this:

If it weren't for the rich, no one would have jobs. They pay for the salaries of everyone who works for them. Many companies also pay for insurance for their employees, pay for them to go to school, and give them many benefits. No one would have anything if it wasn't for rich people paying them to do a job.

The rich also donate a lot of money to charity and what you don't often hear, they pay MORE than all of the taxes. But now people want more stuff. They want free college, free healthcare for all, free everything. The government is $20 trillion in debt. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Our military equipment is falling apart. We pay over $100 billion each year to take care of illegal immigrants. We send billions and even trillions of dollars overseas in aid packages. If there's a disaster anywhere in the world, the Americans are usually the first ones there on the ground to help.

I just think we should let people choose to do more with their money rather than forcing it through taking more taxes.

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the poor working stiffs, the rich wouldn't be rich either.

Guess how much money Bill Gates would have made at Microsoft without any staff to operate the company?

The workers generate the vast majority of the wealth which usually goes to the upper class. They deserve their fair share too. There has to be a balance where the wealthy keep a good amount of what they make, however they should also bear the burden of the heaviest taxation because they are the ones who can afford it.

 

[Aldebaran]

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the poor working stiffs, the rich wouldn't be rich either.

Guess how much money Bill Gates would have made at Microsoft without any staff to operate the company?

The workers generate the vast majority of the wealth which usually goes to the upper class. They deserve their fair share too. There has to be a balance where the wealthy keep a good amount of what they make, however they should also bear the burden of the heaviest taxation because they are the ones who can afford it.

What people don't seem to understand is that they already do. If a poor person making $10,000 a year pays 15% of their income in taxes, and a rich person making $100,000 pays 15%, the rich person is paying 10 times as much money in taxes. I'd say they're paying their fair share. The problem is that they are portrayed as not paying their fair share, and must be made to pay even more, or otherwise we won't have roads and bridges, schools and fire departments.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Several states and cities just adopted higher minimum wage standards. It will be a good test.

18 States and 20 Cities Will Raise the Minimum Wage on January 1

 

[Dave Ellis]

What people don't seem to understand is that they already do. If a poor person making $10,000 a year pays 15% of their income in taxes, and a rich person making $100,000 pays 15%, the rich person is paying 10 times as much money in taxes. I'd say they're paying their fair share. The problem is that they are portrayed as not paying their fair share, and must be made to pay even more, or otherwise we won't have roads and bridges, schools and fire departments.

That was never a point of argument. Obviously the rich pay a higher dollar amount.

The question is if they pay a fair percentage, and there's a strong argument that they don't.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Several states and cities just adopted higher minimum wage standards. It will be a good test.

18 States and 20 Cities Will Raise the Minimum Wage on January 1

This will be an interesting test. The minimum wage where I live (Toronto, Ontario) rose from $11.60 to $14 on Jan 1, and it's slated to go to $15 next Jan 1.

It'll be a couple years to see the economic benefits or impacts. Either way, it should provide an interesting result.

 

[Aldebaran]

That was never a point of argument. Obviously the rich pay a higher dollar amount.

The question is if they pay a fair percentage, and there's a strong argument that they don't.

If they even pay the same percentage (part of which I showed in my example), then it's fair. That is, of course, unless you believe that one person should be required a larger percentage of their income than the next guy. I'd hardly call that "fair".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This will be an interesting test. The minimum wage where I live (Toronto, Ontario) rose from $11.60 to $14 on Jan 1, and it's slated to go to $15 next Jan 1.

It'll be a couple years to see the economic benefits or impacts. Either way, it should provide an interesting result.

We'll see if the unanticipated consequences, that of raising the pay of all the more experienced workers goes up as well. Of course union workers will definitely get raises up the line.The domino effect and subsequent rise in prices may negate any benefit to minimum wage workers.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If they even pay the same percentage (part of which I showed in my example), then it's fair. That is, of course, unless you believe that one person should be required a larger percentage of their income than the next guy. I'd hardly call that "fair".

If one person makes a significantly higher income, then it's absolutely fair.

 

[Aldebaran]

If one person makes a significantly higher income, then it's absolutely fair.

According to who? It's easy for a person who sees someone else that has more than they do to say, "That person needs to pay more than me! They have more than I do, so they can afford it!"

 

[Dave Ellis]

We'll see if the unanticipated consequences, that of raising the pay of all the more experienced workers goes up as well. Of course union workers will definitely get raises up the line.The domino effect and subsequent rise in prices may negate any benefit to minimum wage workers.

I manage most of the staff in the place I work, and yes, we bumped anyone that was below the new minimum up to minimum, and bumped everyone else up to keep the same pay gap as there was before. We did have to tighten our belts a bit in other areas, but there won't be a significant impact to us.

 

[Dave Ellis]

According to who? It's easy for a person who sees someone else that has more than they do to say, "That person needs to pay more than me! They have more than I do, so they can afford it!"

According to anyone that's being reasonable and understands basic economics. I am not in the highest tax bracket, but I'm closer to that than the lowest tax bracket. I should pay a higher percentage of my wages than someone who is making minimum wage because I can afford it, and I care about living in a society that functions.

If I wind up making it to the highest tax bracket, then I should pay even higher percentage. That's the way income tax works in virtually any developed country.

 

[Aldebaran]

According to anyone that's being reasonable and understands basic economics. I am not in the highest tax bracket, but I'm closer to that than the lowest tax bracket. I should pay a higher percentage of my wages than someone who is making minimum wage because I can afford it, and I care about living in a society that functions.

If I wind up making it to the highest tax bracket, then I should pay even higher percentage. That's the way income tax works in virtually any developed country.

Because you can afford it? Does that mean everyone in the same income range can afford it? You don't know what expenses they have, what kind of hardships they may have come across such as with their health. People with a higher income generally have higher expenses as well because their home is a higher price, and therefore pay higher property taxes, higher insurance, etc. If a health crisis suddenly came up, it could hit them pretty hard. Maybe that's not happening to you right now, but everyone has a different circumstance, even if their income is the same. Therefore, you can't determine what any one person can afford.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

According to anyone that's being reasonable and understands basic economics. I am not in the highest tax bracket, but I'm closer to that than the lowest tax bracket. I should pay a higher percentage of my wages than someone who is making minimum wage because I can afford it, and I care about living in a society that functions.

If I wind up making it to the highest tax bracket, then I should pay even higher percentage. That's the way income tax works in virtually any developed country.

People making minimum wages don't pay any taxes except SS and Medicare, and that's for their own benefit. I agree that the rich should pay more. It's how much more that is the question. In the past the high 'progressive' rates were actually punitive.

The other objection to higher taxes is that the government is so inefficient.

Q. How many government workers are needed to change a light bulb?
A. 5,000. One to hold the light bulb and 4,999 to turn the building.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because you can afford it? Does that mean everyone in the same income range can afford it? You don't know what expenses they have, what kind of hardships they may have come across such as with their health. People with a higher income generally have higher expenses as well because their home is a higher price, and therefore pay higher property taxes, higher insurance, etc. If a health crisis suddenly came up, it could hit them pretty hard. Maybe that's not happening to you right now, but everyone has a different circumstance, even if their income is the same. Therefore, you can't determine what any one person can afford.

You have the choice to buy a more expensive or less expensive house. If I all of a sudden started making $500,000 a year more than I do right now, it's my choice to move into a super expensive house. And like anyone, if my financial situation deteriorates to the point that I can't afford the place I'm living right now, then I'd have to sell and move to a place I can afford.

Very few expenses are mandatory, and even those that are mandatory (i.e. food and shelter) you have a great deal of leeway on how much you have to spend on those.

If someone making millions of dollars per year has a tax increase, they are still going to be incredibly wealthy. Paying for housing and health insurance is not going to have a significant impact on their overall quality of life. Bill Gates is not living paycheque to paycheque, and a rise on his taxes will be the straw that finally broke the camels back. It's absurd to even raise that point.

That's true for someone even making a couple hundred thousand a year. I used to be a financial advisor, and I could not believe how many high income earners were essentially broke because they made terrible financial decisions and couldn't set a simple budget.

As for health expenses, in the US, people who have high incomes should have good quality insurance. They'd be stupid not to. However, as a better alternative, they could implement a health care plan that isn't decades behind the rest of the developed world in regards to access to care. Rich and poor people alike don't have to worry about losing their life savings here if they have a health problem. It's astounding America still has that problem.