Shouldn't you keep what you work for?

Question

Why are people against a straight persentage of taxes? Say the percentage is 30%. 'Max' only earns 30,000 a year because he dropped out of high school and works at walmart, after taxes he has 21,000 left. But 'Sam' earns 300,000 as a brain sergeon bc he got good grades and had 15-20 years of extremely hard collage classes and internships, and is left with 210,000.

People have complained that in these cases the rich stay rich and the poor can't get by but its like asking for a doctor's pay when all you do is stock boxes at waly-world. People are too busy yelling 'raise minimum wage' (not realizing that the prices of everything would just go up) instead of raising their own standards and taking a night class to get a better job.

Shouldn't you keep what you earnd?

Answer 1

why not tax spending1 if you rate goods according to their luxury/necessity ie potatoes bread milk zero rated and champagne caviar high rate..

the more you spend on luxury the more you pay

those on lower incomes buy wisely and not pay tax..

I'm sure theres a macro/micro whatev3r reason for it not working but as an ideal i like it!!!

Answer 2

In most of the US, 21k is enough for one person to live reasonably well. Once you add a spouse and kids (especially), 21k is no where near enough and you're going to either cut corners (no or not enough insurance, cutting back on food, living in a hovel, etc.) or you're taking a 2nd job. If you're having a 2nd job, it's a hell of a lot more difficult to go to night classes (btw, night classes are getting to be quite expensive). Poverty is cyclical for a reason.

I do agree with you that any raises to the minimum wage or increase in benefits are passed on directly to the consumer. Social programs to alleviate the underemployed or poorer people in this country also cost an arm and a leg.

The main thinking is that by shifting the tax-burden to the more well-off (such as myself), the people who are underemployed or are at risk to be stuck in a cycle of poverty can make their lives a little better.

Whether the system works or not is up to the statistics you believe in. I personally don't think it works.

Answer 3

Everyone should earn a living wage. Don't confuse the terms of the argument.

Life in these United States shouldn't be about serfs and vassels, nor about upper class and under class, nor about Morloks and Eloi. People who work their *** off should make enough to own a home and a car.

Answer 4

I am a Democrat and it is my blue collar belief that the wealthy must be controlled to some degree, there is no reason any one person should be a multi billionaire....level it out while still giving incentive to people becoming millionaires. Do you personally know a lot of the very rich that it would affect you or do you make onver $100K ? America does not need kings or royalty, excess wealth will make a new royalty class.

Answer 5

I think a "fair tax" would be good. Even percentage for all no matter what salary you make. That way it's fair. It would not be fair to tax Sam extra just because he has a better job. It happens to be Max's fault he did not educate himself and get a better job.

Answer 6

vast Daddy V- Get rid Kane- shop Mark Henry- shop Snitsky- Get rid Umaga- shop Batista- Get rid Bobby Lashley- shop Festus- shop great Khali- shop (as weird and wonderful because it sounds, he's a robust monster heel)

Answer 7

Hello,

It is real simple. Both parties, not just the liberals, are playing the part of Robinhood. You know, taking from the rich and middle class, and giving all to the poor.

I am not kidding either. This is their mentalilty. It is also part of the Communist Manifesto.

Hope this helps you...................... :-)

Answer 8

Yeah you should keep what you earned. The Doctor worked hard to earn what he has, Max was too lazy, but they still need to support their government and keep what they've worked for, not matter how hard they've worked

Answer 9

you have a good point. It may help the middle class.