Why should the riched be taxed more?

Question

That has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. WHy does it seem like some politicians try and make rich people look like villains? If someone legally and honestly makes a fortune, why should they have to pay for more than someone who doesn't? Don't speak from your heart on this one, be real.

G

Okay maybe i wasn't clear, but maybe this will be clearer to some of you, why shouldn't well as spend the same percentage? it's wrong that some have to pey and some dont pay at all. If rich people get takes the same percentage they are still paying more right? so why take from the rich what they've earned?

If they want to give back to society let them do so on their own terms. It is not our right to tell people what they should do with their wealth?

If taxing was about giving to the less fortunate(which is not the governments job btw) then there would be alot of people who aren't even rich giving to those below them? Why would you have a double standard?

sorry about the typos i was typing fast lol

another good point someone made is what is considered rich. There are so many people dependent upon the government that probably are just lazy bums, while there are people (like the middle class slew) that strive for better lives, and the government pulls them down. When I'm talking about rich, I'm not simply speaking of the Bill Gates of the world, but of those whom the govermnents finds to have enough money and because of that they try and give it to the welfare guzzling lazies.(not saying all of them are of course)

Answer 1

They shouldn't!!! Only Liberal Socialist Pigs want to do that so they can redistribute wealth to those who don't deserve it!!!!!

Answer 2

I've always thought that a 'flat tax' would be a good answer to this problem. Keeping that in mind, each individual and each company, large corporate or small business pay 17% of their income to the Federal Tax. Then, let the auditors decide where they want to put it. Of course, we'd still have our State (and/or) City Taxes, but the 17% could do away with SS Tax and Medicare Tax.

A man I used to work for doing political re-writes was attempting to suggest this to congressional leaders. Like everything else, he was blown off. But it does make sense especially with corporations also paying the same amount of their profits.

Also...no exemptions, like new people coming in to the U.S. and on work visas would also have to pay this tax. It would only stand to reason, if they want to come here to work, then they also have to pay their fair and equal share. Also included in the no exemptions, people with or without families would not be getting more or less of a tax break. Added to that would be that any write-off such as chairtable donation, IRA's and so forth would have to hit the 17% of the income in order to be deducted. IE: Special uniforms, shoes and so forth for work, which the employer does not cover, but these items could not be depreciated. It would be on a per year basis, and sales receipts would have to accompany the tax return.

Doing it this way...there isn't a seperate tax scale and will save most probably millions in auditors checking on whether or not someone cheated on their taxes.

Answer 3

I read the answers you had before writing this and I am amazed that people have such strange ideas.
I do believe that there should be very few loop holes in the tax code. I know that Congress created most of those things for good reasons, or what seemed like good reasons at the time.
I likewise believe that ALL people that acquire their money illegally should go to jail whether they are billionaires or penny ante thieves.
Maybe a flat tax is unrealistic, but it should be a whole heck of a lot flatter than it is now.
Congress created the AMT (Alternate Minimum Tax) just especially for all those rich people that invested in Municipal bonds and other tax free items (just like Congress envisioned them doing so as to provide cash for Municipalities and other good causes). Now with the death tax and Congress wanting to increase the taxation on the rich people, they are falling into the same trap that Reagan got us out of. Taxation suppresses the economy and actually reduces tax revenues.
The Democrats want to penalize production and reward laziness and irresponsibility.
Rich people are the reason the poor people have anything at all. If it were not for the successful, then the lazy, the stupid, and the un-educatible would starve.

Answer 4

Rich people do NOT pay more taxes, percentage-wise, than anyone else. Because they make more money, of course their tax bill is larger. On the other hand, they have accountants who help them find every legal loophole, and the rest of us probably overpay most of the time because we don't know about every little exemption.

Having said that, I'd like you to consider a question: is there any reason that the very people who have benefitted the most from living in the United States and have taken advantage of all the freedoms and opportunities we have should NOT be willing to give back to the country, to less fortunate people, to the infrastructure, to charities, or whatever else? I mean, there's really no way a billionaire can spend all their money before they die, is there? Why not give?

Hey, Bobby: I don't value your intelligence either. I admire people like Bill Gates' father and Warren Buffet who are extremely rich and are NOT leaving their money to their children because they want their children to make their own way in the world. These people have petitioned the government to keep the estate tax, by the way. Undeserving children inheriting lots of money is how we get noncontributing citizens like Paris Hilton. I consider these people the real parasites in our country. Poor people get a bad rap but a lot of them are working more than one job and still not getting by.

And I did not say that there weren't tax brackets. But I'm in the highest one and so is Bill Gates, yet there's a vast difference in our incomes.

Answer 5

Flat tax above a certain amount. Say 15 pct.

What we should be focused on.. is reducing the federal tax
but increasing the state tax.

The federal government was never meant to grow like this to take over individual states rights. One reason for the Civil War.

I say a National Federal tax of 5 pct, and 10 pct to the state.
Max. States should hold the money and power within their state.

The federal government is mandated to have a military to protect our borders our country. Not to say Johnny can't read. Or how fast we can drive on an interstate within a state.

Too much power has been shifted to the Federal Government our founding Fathers would have a heart attack on both sides.

It was never meant to be the way it is now.

Answer 6

THis doesn't sound like a question. As some one who is in the bottom end of middle class, I was paying over 50% of my income in tax(State and Federal). Its better now since I got my benefits, but its still wrong. THe harder I work, the less I get for in return. No matter what, the rich has to pay more tax than the poor. THe thing is they pay a disporportionate amount. Lots of liberals try to get a flat tax. THis seems like a good idea for the poor, since they think the rich gets a lot of deductibles, but it isn't. THat means everyone pays 30% rather than the poor pays 20% and the rich pay 40%. What the politician are not saying to tax the rich equally to the poor. like everyone pays 30,000 and I doubt flat tax is being talked about.. I think they want to make the difference in percentage a person pay tax not so stark. Frankly the tax system doesn't seem to hit the rich and poor as bad as the middleclass. For some reason politicians shove us in the rich pile since they think 50% is fair.

Answer 7

I think you are twisting the numbers to your point of view.

Look at it like this, all you have is a crummy job and a beater car. When the Government takes 20% of your money they are taking 20% of your net wealth.
If the government takes more you will not be able to eat or drive your beater car to your crummy job.

The rich NEVER pay 20% of their net wealth, do they.
Increases do not effect the Rich's ability to survive.
As far as creating more jobs last I checked they were to busy locking in cheap labor in China and India rather than creating more crummy jobs here.

Answer 8

Whoever said the rich don't pay a higher percentage in taxes than the not rich is a liar. 85% of this countries tax bill is paid by the top 5% wage earners.

When my wife and I make approx $150,000 per year and pay in over $12,000 in taxes getting nothing back, while a friend who makes $20,000 per year, pays in $1700 and gets $2700 back in refund, I can't believe that are taxe system is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Check the facts, according to the Democrats plan, anyone making more than $68,000 is considered rich.

Have you ever got a job from a poor man?

Answer 9

It is a misunderstanding caused by simple jealousy, as well as lack of knowledge.

People assume that rich people become rich by oppressing the poor. That just isn't true, but it kind of justifies the desire to even things out. After all, isn't everyone against oppression?

Besides, a lot of people assume that the rich simply have money to spare. While that is partly true, they fail to realize the economically, everyone would be better of if the rich, (who have proven themselves to be financially apt,) reinvested the money back into the economy. For instance, if Bill Gates wasn't taxed as much, he might be able to expand Microsoft even more, which would create new jobs, and then those employees would be making money too. Heck, for that matter, if Bill Gates bought 5 private jets, for instance, then the piloting, ATC, and jet-building corporations would make money, and they could spend it on construction, or janitors, or any other "low-level" job. So, while buying 5 jets might be slightly wasteful, it stimulates the economy in a significant, noticeable way.


Edit - I just read the other responses. Romare, you are an idiot. Yes, rich ARE taxed more % than the poor are. Have you ever heard of tax brackets? Furthermore, why shouldn't billionaires be allowed to keep their money? If they made it themselves, then it should be theirs. Who cares if they can't spend it in their lifetime? It's not like it would disappear forever when they died... it would go on to their kids. Wouldn't you like to leave a nice legacy for your offspring? Eventually, after untold numbers of decades, it will all be spent. Where will it go? To people that are willing to work and to sell products or services, NOT to people that live off of welfare and have babies just to get extra $$. See the difference?

Answer 10

There is no legal reason why they should, it's just a question of morals. If someone has more, why not share? I mean, if you can afford plasma tvs in every room and someone to come and massage your dog, surely you can afford to help fund vital public services like hospitals, schools and public transport? Otherwise you leave your society wallowing in the poverty divide and living next-door to people who can barely afford to eat and clothe themselves. It doesnt mean poor people work any less hard, it just means they might not have had the same opportunities for education and employment and therefore are making less money. Rich people, i mean filthy, obscenely rich people, do deserve a comfortable lifestyle, but they should feel an ethical obligation to support the society that supports their lifestyle.

Answer 11

The rich do not get their money in a vacuum they rely on the labor of others. The real question is why do the working poor allow the rich to live off their sweat.