Isn't taxing rich people communism or socialism or whatever the scare-tactic is?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The government needs tax payer money to continue providing its citizens with services. Education, policing, road paving, road signage, welfare, food kitchens, garbage cleanup, public bathrooms, street lights, military, etc, etc.
They can get that money by taxing those who can't afford it more, or they can tax those who can afford it.
Capitalism brings problems, so we now try to have capitalism with a social face which solves some of them, and other problems just keep growing.
Didn't the rich get rich because of the all the others? Why do you need a millions of dollars? For the common good wouldn't it be better to use those millions (or at least some of it) to good use: like infrastructure, education,police force, fire dept., equipment for the military? Instead of it keeping it in a bank all its life for no purpose?
Sure, you shouldn't tax them to death either, they got there for a reason, but after they've bought their mansion, bought their Ferrari and cruise boat I can't see what's the problem to use that money for everyone else. Just like what everyone else does.We contribute. For you, for me and for them.
Take it like this: no taxes is kinda like corruption, and you can see what that does to a country. They can't build roads, they don't get electricity, no water supply and nooo internet..
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the idea was that the rich get rich because of themselves. Like they put a lot of work into something or think of something that works, and that makes them money in respect to what they accomplished. So people should feel like the rich have earned that money and that they have no right to claim any of it just like that (aside from the taxes that everyone pays).Didn't the rich get rich because of the all the others? Why do you need a millions of dollars? For the common good wouldn't it be better to use those millions (or at least some of it) to good use: like infrastructure, police force, fire dept., equipment for the military? Instead of it keeping it in a bank all its life for no purpose? Sure, you shouldn't tax them to death either, they got there for a reason, but after they've bought their mansion, bought their Ferrari and cruise boat I can't see what's the problem to use that money for everyone else. Just like what everyone else does.We contribute. For you, for me and for them.
Take it like this: no taxes is kinda like corruption, and youcan see what thatdoes to a country. Theycan't build roads, they don't get electricity,no water supply and nooo internet.._Colossus_
Over time that idea has become completely unrecognizable. When someone thinks of something that works, somebody else claims to have had patent rights or their employer takes the idea from them. What works and what doesn't work is unknown as even the most important sources of knowledge are swayed by dollars. And You don't have to put a lot of work into something to make a lot of money, You just have to pressure and scam badly enough to make honest competition impossible. The system has been corrupted, and i'm sure it's being corrupted ever more. There are still a few goodhearted businessmen, most of them probably decomposing inside their graves.
The rich are seen as scum, instead of being looked up at in appreciation, so we want to take everything from the rich and give it to the poor, which solves nothing about our situation as a whole.
I never liked the tax the rich the most because it then becomes slight imoral to a point. I think there should be a maxium tax of 40%. What really annoys me is how people who work their arse off get taxed loads and yet people can do nothing and yet have the "rights" to money. For example a girl gets pregnant for the sake of child benifits and cashes in on a free house etc.
I don't believe in everyone is equal to everything because some people are just not worth that. There should be a good basic level living standard but after that let the people who earn their money no matter how much; let them keep it.
I suppose it's for two main reasons. Those who benefit from the gov. should be the one who pay the most. Rich people do benefit the most because they establish their businesses and whatever on national soil which are naturally owned by the gov. They are also given advantages and other facilities by the gov.
It's human because forcing everyone to pay 20% despite of their different financial backgrounds is something not everyone is able to do hence the increase in percentage.
Well. if a country is communist, then there are no rich people according to that nation's currency since everyone is given the same amount. However, if you were to take a capitalist country, then give it a communist dictatorship, then you would have to tax the rich more and give it to the middle class in order to achieve that. So yes.
Why should the rich pay higher taxes than everybody else? Because the government requires money to function, and the government effectively serves to protect the rich and keep them in power.
I'm not sure why the poor should have to pay an equal share to support a government that forces the poor into wage-slave labor that allows the rich to @#$% them in the ass on a regular basis.
maybe so, but they can do whatever they want with their money, if they want to be greedy and keep it all to themselves and donate none of it, then that's their deal. But say all the rich people in the world accumulate a majority of the worlds funds as a whole, and were not to donate or give any to the needy, leaving very little for the rest of us. Where would we be?[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.
needled24-7
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]maybe so, but they can do whatever they want with their money, if they want to be greedy and keep it all to themselves and donate none of it, then that's their deal. But say all the rich people in the world accumulate a majority of the worlds funds as a whole, and were not to donate or give any to the needy, leaving very little for the rest of us. Where would we be?[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.
MuddVader
We would be in the middle of another French or Russian revolution. And I don't think it's that far off.
You need to get money from somewhere if you want to run a successful government, but taxes couldn't really get any higher for the rich as it is. You can all ways get away with taxing the rich, because at the point where they have as much money as they have they don't really need any more. They would just waste it on pointless expensive crap anyway. In any case if the tax levels were a single rate for everyone then people below a certain point will only become poorer, and people above a certain point will become richer. At least with varying tax levels there is a greater opportunity for those less well off to become richer. It seems pretty logical for a government to aim to improve the overall quality of life for those who need it the most, and it's not as if a great injustice has been done on the already rich anyway. It's not extreme socialism though, but still, I don't really know much about the whole anti-socialistpropaganda thing, that's probably more an American thing.
Rich people get richer, poor people get poorer. That is the argument. optiowThis is disgusting. Everyone would get richer if taxes were lower and the economy could take care of itself without being dragged down by the endless taxes. And you know where those taxes go? Fat government agencies that are inefficient and could be replaced by a commercial corporation which would have competition and a reason to be successful, without having constant policy changes from new government leaders. Such an environment breeds innovation and productivity.
*Everyone's* Standard of living should be improving, not just homeless people and the poor.You need to get money from somewhere if you want to run a successful government, but taxes couldn't really get any higher for the rich as it is. You can all ways get away with taxing the rich, because at the point where they have as much money as they have they don't really need any more. They would just waste it on pointless expensive crap anyway. In any case if the tax levels were a single rate for everyone then people below a certain point will only become poorer, and people above a certain point will become richer. At least with varying tax levels there is a greater opportunity for those less well off to become richer. It seems pretty logical for a government to aim to improve the overall quality of life for those who need it the most, and it's not as if a great injustice has been done on the already rich anyway. It's not extreme socialism though, but still, I don't really know much about the whole anti-socialistpropaganda thing, that's probably more an American thing.
WasntAvailable
The more I learn about Socialism, the more I'm finding it fits in with my ideals.
The more I learn about Socialism, the more I'm finding it fits in with my ideals.
MystikFollower
Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. I think you mean Liberalism or Social Democracy, which are mainstream political ideologies.
[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]*Everyone's* Standard of living should be improving, not just homeless people and the poor.You need to get money from somewhere if you want to run a successful government, but taxes couldn't really get any higher for the rich as it is. You can all ways get away with taxing the rich, because at the point where they have as much money as they have they don't really need any more. They would just waste it on pointless expensive crap anyway. In any case if the tax levels were a single rate for everyone then people below a certain point will only become poorer, and people above a certain point will become richer. At least with varying tax levels there is a greater opportunity for those less well off to become richer. It seems pretty logical for a government to aim to improve the overall quality of life for those who need it the most, and it's not as if a great injustice has been done on the already rich anyway. It's not extreme socialism though, but still, I don't really know much about the whole anti-socialistpropaganda thing, that's probably more an American thing.
Darkainious
Money does not grow on tree's. I mean sure, in fantasy land you could create a perfect balance where money wasn't even an issue, but the world is too complicated to cut straight through issues by simply saying things should/could be done in a certain way. Come up with a good idea to implement that idea and sure you might have a point, but until then we have to stay thoroughly grounded in reality and take things one step at a time so that life can be improved for everyone. The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa. You can't benefit both at the same time without some radical solution, which you don't have, and let's face it, who needs the benefit the most?
*Everyone's* Standard of living should be improving, not just homeless people and the poor.[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]
You need to get money from somewhere if you want to run a successful government, but taxes couldn't really get any higher for the rich as it is. You can all ways get away with taxing the rich, because at the point where they have as much money as they have they don't really need any more. They would just waste it on pointless expensive crap anyway. In any case if the tax levels were a single rate for everyone then people below a certain point will only become poorer, and people above a certain point will become richer. At least with varying tax levels there is a greater opportunity for those less well off to become richer. It seems pretty logical for a government to aim to improve the overall quality of life for those who need it the most, and it's not as if a great injustice has been done on the already rich anyway. It's not extreme socialism though, but still, I don't really know much about the whole anti-socialistpropaganda thing, that's probably more an American thing.
WasntAvailable
Money does not grow on tree's. I mean sure, in fantasy land you could create a perfect balance where money wasn't even an issue, but the world is too complicated to cut straight through issues by simply saying things should/could be done in a certain way. Come up with a good idea to implement that idea and sure you might have a point, but until then we have to stay thoroughly grounded in reality and take things one step at a time so that life can be improved for everyone. The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa. You can't benefit both at the same time without some radical solution, which you don't have, and let's face it, who needs the benefit the most?
I do have a radical solution. At least some view as radical. But before I discuss that, I would like to point something out. You said"The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa." This is clearly untrue as in a fair tax everyone would get taxed the same, and no one would benefit more. However I don't think a fair tax should be pursued. We need to find an alternative to income tax, that taxes all the same percentage. Now to my radical solution. I will tell you about Thomas Jefferson's view of what the government should be. He envisioned the government running the post office and protecting the borders. Period. Imagine what your taxes would be like. Imagine how corruption would have almost no opportunity to creep in. This would obviously happen over a number of years as we decreased the deficit and people went to new jobs.
Here's a pie of the wealth distrobution in the U.S.:
That blue part represents the rich.
So, if you were a government official and had to come up with a few hundred billion dollars, where do you think it's going to come from?
If you get a bigger piece of the pie, you pay for a bigger slice.
[QUOTE="optiow"]Rich people get richer, poor people get poorer. That is the argument. DarkainiousThis is disgusting. Everyone would get richer if taxes were lower and the economy could take care of itself without being dragged down by the endless taxes. And you know where those taxes go? Fat government agencies that are inefficient and could be replaced by a commercial corporation which would have competition and a reason to be successful, without having constant policy changes from new government leaders. Such an environment breeds innovation and productivity. You're right about the efficiency of commercial enterprises doing the government's work, but you still have to pay those corporations to provide the service. And for that you need taxes. Probably less taxes, but you still need them.
[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Darkainious"] *Everyone's* Standard of living should be improving, not just homeless people and the poor. Darkainious
Money does not grow on tree's. I mean sure, in fantasy land you could create a perfect balance where money wasn't even an issue, but the world is too complicated to cut straight through issues by simply saying things should/could be done in a certain way. Come up with a good idea to implement that idea and sure you might have a point, but until then we have to stay thoroughly grounded in reality and take things one step at a time so that life can be improved for everyone. The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa. You can't benefit both at the same time without some radical solution, which you don't have, and let's face it, who needs the benefit the most?
I do have a radical solution. At least some view as radical. But before I discuss that, I would like to point something out. You said"The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa." 1.This is clearly untrue as in a fair tax everyone would get taxed the same, and no one would benefit more. However I don't think a fair tax should be pursued. We need to find an alternative to income tax, that taxes all the same percentage. Now to my radical solution. 2.I will tell you about Thomas Jefferson's view of what the government should be. He envisioned the government running the post office and protecting the borders. Period. Imagine what your taxes would be like. Imagine how corruption would have almost no opportunity to creep in. This would obviously happen over a number of years as we decreased the deficit and people went to new jobs.1. You don't seriously believe that? If everyone was taxed equally the taxes on the rich would go down and the taxes on the poor would go up, and if it were to keep the same level of funds required by the government it would probably go up, what? 120%? Ultimately you're saying abolish taxes and give control to the people...
2. :lol: Do you really think society would have made it this far if not for governments control? For all their faults and problems do you really think you would be where you are now without them? Countries do not run themselves. Or would you rather hand more control over to corporations who would do the same thing but possibly in an even less beneficial way? People need to have at least some measure of external control to exist in a global society. It's ironic that an American like Thomas Jefferson would believe America could exist with a smaller control over an entire country and not be crushed by far greater developed powers as a result, like what they did in the first place.
I do have a radical solution. At least some view as radical. But before I discuss that, I would like to point something out. You said"The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa." 1.This is clearly untrue as in a fair tax everyone would get taxed the same, and no one would benefit more. However I don't think a fair tax should be pursued. We need to find an alternative to income tax, that taxes all the same percentage. Now to my radical solution. 2.I will tell you about Thomas Jefferson's view of what the government should be. He envisioned the government running the post office and protecting the borders. Period. Imagine what your taxes would be like. Imagine how corruption would have almost no opportunity to creep in. This would obviously happen over a number of years as we decreased the deficit and people went to new jobs.[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]
Money does not grow on tree's. I mean sure, in fantasy land you could create a perfect balance where money wasn't even an issue, but the world is too complicated to cut straight through issues by simply saying things should/could be done in a certain way. Come up with a good idea to implement that idea and sure you might have a point, but until then we have to stay thoroughly grounded in reality and take things one step at a time so that life can be improved for everyone. The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa. You can't benefit both at the same time without some radical solution, which you don't have, and let's face it, who needs the benefit the most?
WasntAvailable
1. You don't seriously believe that? If everyone was taxed equally the taxes on the rich would go down and the taxes on the poor would go up, and if it were to keep the same level of funds required by the government it would probably go up, what? 120%? Ultimately you're saying abolish taxes and give control to the people...
2. :lol: Do you really think society would have made it this far if not for governments control? For all their faults and problems do you really think you would be where you are now without them? Countries do not run themselves. Or would you rather hand more control over to corporations who would do the same thing but possibly in an even less beneficial way? People need to have at least some measure of external control to exist in a global society. It's ironic that an American like Thomas Jefferson would believe America could exist with a smaller control over an entire country and not be crushed by far greater developed powers as a result, like what they did in the first place.
Yes I am an American, and I am like Thomas Jefferson. Of course country's do not run themselves, we would still have a government, but one with much less opportunity to screw itself. I believe if we correctly implemented such a system it would be incredibly effective, and helpful to the economy.[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Darkainious"] I do have a radical solution. At least some view as radical. But before I discuss that, I would like to point something out. You said"The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa." 1.This is clearly untrue as in a fair tax everyone would get taxed the same, and no one would benefit more. However I don't think a fair tax should be pursued. We need to find an alternative to income tax, that taxes all the same percentage. Now to my radical solution. 2.I will tell you about Thomas Jefferson's view of what the government should be. He envisioned the government running the post office and protecting the borders. Period. Imagine what your taxes would be like. Imagine how corruption would have almost no opportunity to creep in. This would obviously happen over a number of years as we decreased the deficit and people went to new jobs.Darkainious
1. You don't seriously believe that? If everyone was taxed equally the taxes on the rich would go down and the taxes on the poor would go up, and if it were to keep the same level of funds required by the government it would probably go up, what? 120%? Ultimately you're saying abolish taxes and give control to the people...
2. :lol: Do you really think society would have made it this far if not for governments control? For all their faults and problems do you really think you would be where you are now without them? Countries do not run themselves. Or would you rather hand more control over to corporations who would do the same thing but possibly in an even less beneficial way? People need to have at least some measure of external control to exist in a global society. It's ironic that an American like Thomas Jefferson would believe America could exist with a smaller control over an entire country and not be crushed by far greater developed powers as a result, like what they did in the first place.
Yes I am an American, and I am like Thomas Jefferson. Of course country's do not run themselves, we would still have a government, but one with much less opportunity to screw itself. I believe if we correctly implemented such a system it would be incredibly effective, and helpful to the economy.Ok then, but if you truly believe you could correctly implement such a system then explain how.
If you can't then you have no right to say implementing said system should ever work. It would be incredibly difficult to do this. Keep in mind the balance we have now is a result of massive organizations making alterations to the systems that preceded them in order to adapt to the times. It would take an absolute genius to come up with a better idea, and an even greater genius to implement it.
[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="Darkainious"] I do have a radical solution. At least some view as radical. But before I discuss that, I would like to point something out. You said"The more you benefit the rich the more you worsen the conditions for the poor and vice versa." 1.This is clearly untrue as in a fair tax everyone would get taxed the same, and no one would benefit more. However I don't think a fair tax should be pursued. We need to find an alternative to income tax, that taxes all the same percentage. Now to my radical solution. 2.I will tell you about Thomas Jefferson's view of what the government should be. He envisioned the government running the post office and protecting the borders. Period. Imagine what your taxes would be like. Imagine how corruption would have almost no opportunity to creep in. This would obviously happen over a number of years as we decreased the deficit and people went to new jobs.Darkainious
1. You don't seriously believe that? If everyone was taxed equally the taxes on the rich would go down and the taxes on the poor would go up, and if it were to keep the same level of funds required by the government it would probably go up, what? 120%? Ultimately you're saying abolish taxes and give control to the people...
2. :lol: Do you really think society would have made it this far if not for governments control? For all their faults and problems do you really think you would be where you are now without them? Countries do not run themselves. Or would you rather hand more control over to corporations who would do the same thing but possibly in an even less beneficial way? People need to have at least some measure of external control to exist in a global society. It's ironic that an American like Thomas Jefferson would believe America could exist with a smaller control over an entire country and not be crushed by far greater developed powers as a result, like what they did in the first place.
Yes I am an American, and I am like Thomas Jefferson. Of course country's do not run themselves, we would still have a government, but one with much less opportunity to screw itself. I believe if we correctly implemented such a system it would be incredibly effective, and helpful to the economy.The 1800's were pretty terrible and I'd rather not go back to that.
Yes I am an American, and I am like Thomas Jefferson. Of course country's do not run themselves, we would still have a government, but one with much less opportunity to screw itself. I believe if we correctly implemented such a system it would be incredibly effective, and helpful to the economy.[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]
1. You don't seriously believe that? If everyone was taxed equally the taxes on the rich would go down and the taxes on the poor would go up, and if it were to keep the same level of funds required by the government it would probably go up, what? 120%? Ultimately you're saying abolish taxes and give control to the people...
2. :lol: Do you really think society would have made it this far if not for governments control? For all their faults and problems do you really think you would be where you are now without them? Countries do not run themselves. Or would you rather hand more control over to corporations who would do the same thing but possibly in an even less beneficial way? People need to have at least some measure of external control to exist in a global society. It's ironic that an American like Thomas Jefferson would believe America could exist with a smaller control over an entire country and not be crushed by far greater developed powers as a result, like what they did in the first place.
Former_Slacker
The 1800's were pretty terrible and I'd rather not go back to that.
LOL. Indentured servitude, here I come!Taxation of the wealthy is not communism or socialism. What do you mean by "A common argument that is used by undergrad kids getting into politics (and subsequently knowing nothing about politics) is that "rich people should be taxed more because... something. I forget what the actual argument is." I think, you mean nothing by this because you are unable to specifically state what argument you're opposing. Instead you use phrases like "undergrad kids", "getting into politics", "subsequently knowing nothing". You're taking a shot at people you disagree with, without actually opposing their argument. In fact you can't even identify what their argument is as you say the following "I forget what the actual argument is." SO, I'm left wondering. What is the point of this thread? Are you a graduate that knows something about politics that other people don't know? Because I'm not seeing it here. You offered absolutely nothing of substance. All you did was propose an absurd idea that communism and socialism can be reduced the concept of taxing the wealthy.EMOEVOLUTION
My friend I am pretty sure you just single handedly shut down this thread. Nice work :D.
Its unfortunate how politicians are WAY too spineless to get rid ofhorribly run,inefficientfederal systems (Medicare, Postal Service,Social Security), because it would alientate them from their constituants and most likely prevent them from getting reelected. We might actually be able to do something about the deficit at that point which wouldn't involve more taxes.
If anything, I'd suggest financial benefits and tax reductions for corporations who work to create more jobs in America and have the government work to eliminate those horrid revenue black holes and replace them with something efficient.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment