A tax question for the Left, Democrats, Socialists, and Liberals (ok...and republicans)?

Question

It seems like no matter what problem comes up, the "left" (as I'll refer to them collectivly) wants to solve it by "taxing the rich" or by taxing everyone....but giving a refund to those who make less than $50K per year, etc.

So here is my question. At what point will you say "ya know, we've taxed the rich enough, it's time to tax the poor and the middle class OR cut back on social services". What is the MAXIMUM percentage of their income that you think the government is entitled to?

The left talks about "fairness"....how fair is it that 90% of america can vote to take away your money (assuming you're wealthy) to get services that benefit everyone but the wealthy? Anyway...that's another issue (and by the way I'm not rich...just see fairness in a differnt light).

I really am interested in your responses. Actually I'm interested in everyone's. State where you stand (Left, right, etc) and what you think.

Is this a tough question? I want a percentage.

I think it's obvious that taking 100% of the riche's money is too much and is not fair, but why won't anyone put a percentage on it??? How much is too much???

Answer 1

I'm conservative and taxes are one of my pet peeves. Especially when I have to listen to my co-workers whose salary is the same as mine complaining about government spending when they don't even PAY taxes anyway! Since they made the personal decision to have children they get 100% of their tax money returned and some of them get literally double back what they pay in. Basically they pay no taxes, get a "bonus" from the government every year, and they have the nerve to complain about how MY tax money is being spent. I chose not to have children because I felt I couldn't afford them properly---but because of my decision I have to pay their taxes AND bonus, and still be happy about their right to vote to raise the amount of taxes that I have to pay. Grrrr....

Answer 2

Why do you have to think inside the box on this, there's many other solutions. Your mis-labeling of the Fair Tax system is a good example.

Imagine if you NEVER ever needed to file another income tax return. Everything you earned, you keep. Rich or poor, fat or thin, whoever you are.

Now, imagine if you are taxed only when you consume NEW items that aren't necessary for living. Only when you bought a new car instead of a perfectly good used car. Only when you bought Swiss chocolate instead of eggs and butter. Imagine drug dealers and pimps are now taxed without taking away their criminal status every time they pimp their ride or buy some more bling-bling.

You would be perfectly able to horde your wealth as much as you want if you so chose. You could subsist completely on buying used items and actually cooking nutritious food from raw ingredients and never pay any tax.

Rich and poor in this situation would pay their fair share. Rich and poor recieve equal services of protection of their nation and enforcement of the laws. Rich and poor each would choose to VOLUNTARILY pay taxes instead of being forced. Charity and welfare would likewise be a voluntary system, otherwise get off your butt and work.

If you combine this with other Libertarian initiatives like "balanced budget" and "separation of corporations and State", this system works rather well. Unfortunately, it means people would need to take personal responsibility over their own lives, which is something worshippers of neither main party can seem to do.

Answer 3

I'm somewhat in the middle. The short answer is that we should tax people enough to cover our expenses. It is irresponsible to cut taxes of the wealthy while expanding (by several times) the size of the government.

But it is a bit of a mistake to talk about it in terms of a percentage. The wealthier you are, the less of your money you make from a salary, and the more you get from other sources (such a rents, royalties, stock sales and other financial interests, etc). I have absolutely no problem with capital gains taxes (which only occur on sales of stock and so on when people hold them less than six months), the current estate taxes (which exempts the first few million dollars anyway, and nearly all propery), and favor raising the Social Security limit (to help cover the large outlay of social security payments that the wealthy will get, far above and beyond what they pay in).

The wealthy are taxed more because they can afford it more. And they use more services, in general, than the poor.

Answer 4

First, let me say I am very much to the right, but I'm going to answer your question anyway. I am a single mother and high school teacher, who makes well under your $50 K mark. At least half of my refund is held in a savings account until the end of July because my son will need an entire new set of clothes - all of his school clothes are too small. He went through 3 different sizes of shoes in the 2005-2006 school year.

How many of that "rich" class has to decide to pay the light bill or the house note this month? How many of them has to watch their children's pants get shorter and shorter, because they just can't afford to go buy new clothes? Better yet, buy one pair and wash them every night, so he'll have clothes tomorrow.

I know there are people who receive government benefits, that probably do not deserve them. People who just don't want to work, I believe those people could be cut out. I make too much to recieve benefits, and as long as there is not an emergenicy I get by.

I think at age 24 every one should have to live for one year for less than $25 K, then we could talk about fair. I don't want to be rich but I would like to be able to buy at least every other pair of my son's shoes from somewhere other than Payless or Walmart.

I don't know what maximum % of their income the government should take, and I don't care. I do think they should be happy they have enough left over to pay their light bill. (I might get it all back in April, but they still take it out every month.) I do know this, if I made over $50 K a year, no one would have to take it from me to help those that need it.

Answer 5

A quick clarification...the current proposed tax hikes affect people who make over $220,000 (not $50,000), which is the most money that a person can typically make through the fruits of their own labor (doctors, lawyers, etc). Above that amount it's money that is typically made through investment (nothing wrong with that, I've got investments, but it doesn't represent money moving through the economy through goods or services).

To get to your question, the problem is strictly one of public relations. Democratic tax policy is complicated and counter intuitive, in other words, it's easily spun into a quick sound bite--"taxing the rich." But, that's not even close to accurate. Books have been written on this subject (and believe me, they aren't easy to read). Suffice it to say that "the rich" make out pretty good under even the most Draconian of tax plans (none of which are on the table) and people in my tax bracket (upper-middle class) actually benefit economically by paying slightly higher taxes.

What?

I know it seems crazy but it's true.

Let's try a brief example--single payer health coverage. If we went to a system of "socialized" medicine for the lowest income earners then I would be better off even though I would pay slightly higher taxes. Here's why--I ALREADY pay for their health coverage through my health insurance premiums. When they go to the Emergency room (because they are uninsured) and get tagged with a HUGE bill they can never possibly pay then the hospital covers the cost of their treatment plus all collection costs, lawyers fees, lost profit, etc by raising the cost of all other procedures that will be covered by insurance. My insurance company then passes the bill on to me in the form of higher rates.

Remember that both the insurance company and the hospital have either investors or a board of directors who will demand performance results, so, as I stated above, I also pay to maintain their profit performance.

So think of it this way. If I just agree to give the government another $100 a year so that poor people can get health care they 1) won't go to emergency (saving me a ton of money) 2) won't get sued by the hospital (necessitating me to pay for lawyers, court costs collection costs, etc.) 3) I won't have to pay the hospital or insurance companies to maintain their profit margin on my own money. 4) I won't have to pay the increased cost for consumer credit that is driven up by medical cost induced bankruptcies by the poor people.

For my hundred bucks in taxes I just saved myself about $500 in insurance premiums and credit costs.

Counter-intuitive, but no less true...and I still get the best medical care I'm willing to insure myself for.

Answer 6

i'd placed it in 1960 even as the student League for business Democracy (SLID) renamed themselves the students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and began operating to radicalize the extra liberal college scholars of that element. This became the biases of the so-said as "adolescents-second" which morphed into the counterculture/hippie move/antiwar move of the mid 60s. They embraced each and every radical reason that got here alongside (such as progressive Marxism/Communism) and inspired the young ones to reject the values of their dad and mom and the so-said as "institution." The engaged in radial rhetoric and deliberately categorised the conservatives as "racists." by using the overdue 60s and early 70s the older individuals of this move had graduated into grassroots politics and changed into engaged in taking up the left-wing (neo-left) of the Democratic celebration. Their maximum proper victory changed into hounding Richard Nixon from workplace and setting up the fall down of South Vietnam and the North Vietnamese victory. they have radicalized ALL politics in the previous twenty-5 years, yet modern-day themselves as "mainstream Democrats" at present. There at the instant are not any conservative Democrats, and average Democrats are frequently shouted down and browbeaten into silence.

Answer 7

Not until the structures of society have changed for good, i.e.: till the poor are not so poor. BTW, I'm a Socialist.