The richest should pay the most, especially since their profits are off the backs of the poor. If those at the poverty level or below payed at the same percentage, does anyone realize what that would do to our country? American citizens, unable to provide for the basic necessities and taxed just like the wealthiest Americans? How many revolutions have started this way in the world's history? Aren't we supposed to learn from mistakes? Anyone taking such a position is simply being shortsighted and not thinking about the entire issue. The most overburdened class is the middle anyway. I don't give a **** about the rich. Their lives are not impacted in any way except maybe they won't be able to spring for the heated seats in this year's Italian luxury car. Percentage-wise, the middle class is buckling and they need the most relief. What about if your parents gave birth to you in poverty? If you lost everything due to a house fire or medical issues, should you be penalized for being **** out of luck? This is arguably the biggest lie perpetuated about our country. In a vacuum, it can happen. realistically, it does not. People born poor usually stay poor. If they're lucky, they might manage to live outside their means and become lower-middle class or their kids might become middle class if consecutive generations get the breaks. It's extremely difficult for an individual to break the poverty cycle and even when they do, it's rare that they did it on their own. It happens and a great story usually fuels the success, but not everyone can and will do it. If you really feel that, then we are looking at a phenomenon of citizens who are choosing poverty over financial independence. The middle class grows smaller and smaller every year. The upper class not only does not grow, but their incomes do grow. The only thing growing is the lower class. It's simply not realistic... I would support a flat tax, but only if three-four levels were created in which the tax were implemented.
For starters it would be double taxation. That $100 was income when your dad earned it. He paid taxes on it. Why should that money be taxable for you? Secondly since most inheritance is in untaxed capital gains. So the asset balance could swing wildly. Should we really expect someone to pay 50% on a million dollars in assets today when those assets may only be worth five hundred thousand dollars tommorrow. As I stated before I think a (heavy)tax on the estate is fair because most wealth is un-taxed capital gains and the inheritors are receiving a stepped up basis. Estate taxes make much less sense (none) if cap gains are treated like income, and it makes no sense to treat inheritance like income. Here we agree. A flat tax sounds good, but is not really a workable solution.
Well, because he was taxed on his income and I'm taxed on my income. The $100 that I earned from my renter also had taxes paid on it. But when it became my income, I owe taxes on it. The $100 I was paid as a consultant had taxes paid on it by my client, yet I still owe taxes on my income. Why is inherited income to be treated any differently than earned income or unearned investment income? Is it? They could also be worth two million dollars tomorrow. Inheritances and other probate issues are a snapshot in time. How can it be otherwise?
You are describing scenarios that are not parallel. The inherited monies represent wealth. If your dad was still alive that $100 would not be taxable for just sitting in an MMA. Why should it be taxable as income when it is passed to you just because he did some avoidable thing like die? The consulting and rental income do not represent wealth. They were paid to you for services you provided or work you did. The fact the receiver of the services already paid taxes on the money, in no way, creates a an instance of double taxation. Yeah, and by no small margin. I'm talking like high 90's. Think of all the homesteads purchased for a couple thousand bucks in the 50's that are worth hundreds of thousands today. Think of all Exxon stock purchased on employee stock plans 60 years ago at 3 dollars a share. Right. This is exactly why they should not be considered income for the inheritors. The estate pays the taxes. The individual inherits the remainder, and will pay taxes on any gains they recognize from the wealth.
simple: if you take away 50% of that guy's salary, he no longer: shops at walmart grabs a meal at mcdonalds buy a car from some sh!tty used lot gets new shoes every couple years puts braces on his kids' teeth etc. etc. etc. so since you want to do this to a large portion of the population, none of these people do these things. so the following chain of events happen. the rich business owners start losing tons of money, because people can no lonnger afford their services prices go up to make up the difference in money no longer coming in even fewer of the middle class/poor use these services rich lose even more money repeat until stores start closing middle class/poor turn to theft and burglary to acquire items necessary to live all hell breaks loose
what is the relevance of your facts? my point is that an wealthy person generally does things with his money, things that are better than giving that money to the government. even if the person simply puts their money in the bank and does nothing, that is more money the bank has to loan. the existence of rich people that are keeping lots of money is good. we dont want bill gates to be taxed.we dont relaly want anyone to be taxed more that absolutely necessary. bill gates, by starting a business that hires thousands and thousands and earns billions, has done an enormous service to the economy even if he is taxed at 0%.
The facts are relevant to the post I was responding to. WRT Gates, I mostly agree, except I would limit that benefit of minimal taxation to his lifetime. I don't understand why those benefits should acrue to his heirs in perpetuity as some sort of royal entitlement. They would not have done shyte to earn it. Let them earn it themselves. There will be plenty of resources to get them started.
because he earned the money and it is his money to give to his heirs. i got a christmas gift this year. i didnt deserve it.does that entitle you to have some of it?
