Taxing the rich seems like the best logical choice...

 

...Give everybody equal opportunity and we're good.

 

What?

 

I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

Taxing the rich seems like the best logical choice...

 

...Give everybody equal opportunity and we're good.

 

What?

 

I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

Read and understand the rest of the post? :roll:

 

Taxing the rich seems like the best logical choice, but unfortunately this would make them upset and probably move someplace else as everybody else has said.

I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

 

Suffer? Let's not throw that word around so lightly. If a poor man and a rich man both pay $100 for taxes, who do you think will be suffering more when they have to put bread on the table for their families? The fairest standard to go by would be proportions. $100 can be a quarter of the poor man's paycheck, while $100 to the rich can be less than 1% of his income. It's not completely fair (that would be impossible), but it's much fairer than having everybody pay the same.

I prefer the Progressive Income Tax.

 

Your first 10,000 dollars are taxed at 15%

Your next 10,000 dollars are taxed at 20%

 

etc, etc.

I prefer the Progressive Income Tax.

 

Your first 10,000 dollars are taxed at 15%

Your next 10,000 dollars are taxed at 20%

 

etc, etc.

Is there a limit? Anyone who makes more than $200,000 in their life time will have to pay 100% tax.

I prefer the Progressive Income Tax.

 

Your first 10,000 dollars are taxed at 15%

Your next 10,000 dollars are taxed at 20%

 

etc, etc.

Is there a limit? Anyone who makes more than $200,000 in their life time will have to pay 100% tax.

Well yeah of course.

I prefer the Progressive Income Tax.

 

Your first 10,000 dollars are taxed at 15%

Your next 10,000 dollars are taxed at 20%

 

etc, etc.

Is there a limit? Anyone who makes more than $200,000 in their life time will have to pay 100% tax.

Well yeah of course.

 

I think Riku mis interpretted in more than one way

 

$200,000 in thier lifetime

 

This implies he thinks you earn say $5,000 a year. First 2 years you pay 15%, next year you pay 20% etc.

 

What it ACTUALLY means is:

If you earn $15,000 a year. You pay 15% on the first $10,000 then 20% on the remaining $5,000

NJ has high property and income tax that it almost is stealing. I think about 30,000 "millionaire households" left NJ last year because of how high taxes are. Hopefully with Chris Cristie as governor (good man, I know him) he'll reform taxes in a way that isn't so high and everywhere.

 

Honestly, our Democratic governor's (Jon Corzine) plan was basically just tax small business really really high, force them to get an insurance policy for everyone who they employ, and then kill everyone else with sales tax, property tax and income tax through the roof. I thought Democrats were against Mr. BigBusinessCEO? Because the only type of business that can survive in this type of environment is just that.

 

Taxes wouldn't be so high though if America wasn't such a welfare and police state. If we cut our funding to other countries and our sporadic wars for a decade, call for more public philanthropy again, and kill programs that kill incentive to work like welfare we'd probably have enough money to end world hunger and pay off half of our international debtors while decreasing taxes. I laughed in my economic studies class when in the late 1800s before the depression of 1893, the government had excess money and there wasn't an income tax.

If you aren't getting anything out of tax payments, your government isn't doing a good job. Consider USA: $900 000 000 000 (nine hundred billion) spent on the Iraq war. What a waste of your money. Think of all the security systems that could be bought for that price, and how many hundred billion would be left over? Think of the incredible national security you could have, or how much safer your american future would be with 900 billion less of a public deficit?

 

No, here in Norway, all but the top 0,7% of earners get more value than if they were to buy the services publically for the same amount. If your government is "stealing from you", your government is not investing in the right things.

 

 

Taxation is one of the best ways for consumers to get what they deserve, other than were republicans, nationalists, those who are too socialist, and those with malfunctioning economic policies rule. Look at the scandinavian model: average of about 40% income tax, yet you still get more than if you were to buy services publically. That's a success story. Low taxes are not always best, fairest, or what the rich earn most on.

Taxing the rich seems like the best logical choice...

 

...Give everybody equal opportunity and we're good.

 

What?

 

I believe equal opportunity also implies that those who take advantage of it should receive the benefits from it, not suffer from more taxes because of it. Instead everyone should have the same taxes, since that would be part of "equal opportunity".

Read and understand the rest of the post? :roll:

 

Taxing the rich seems like the best logical choice, but unfortunately this would make them upset and probably move someplace else as everybody else has said.

 

I read it, and I understood it. I was saying your logic sucks. Taxing the reach is not at all the most logical thing to do if you're supporting equal opportunity, so why even bother posting it if it contradicts your own views?

What I meant was that it's natural instinct to choose taxing the rich, but in reality it is not. Meaning, just because it's easier doesn't mean its right. Meaning I personally don't believe in taxing the rich.

If stealing is moral because the government 'steal' your cash in the form of taxation, then killing because the government does it through military is moral by your logic.

Things government institutionalized entities are better at than market competition:

Public Defense

Utilities

Transfer Payments/Donations

 

As an individual, paying taxes is generally preferable to its alternatives, not paying taxes and being arrested or withdrawing from the system and being autonomous.

 

There is no morality but the morality of free market economics. Rational self interest is the only commandment. If you participate in the government it is because you have deemed it the rational decision and that you gain more than you lose.

Kid rock says its ok...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg

Language warning^^

Kid rock says its ok...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCADfZD-eg

Language warning^^

 

That was funny :P.

Just saw this quote:

"I like taxes. With them I buy civilization."

True indeed.

Oh, yeah. Stupid government.

 

I've changed my mind now.

Yeah, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a suit. Also, I just found this topic again, still sums up my opinions on the matter pretty much.

Yeah, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a suit. Also, I just found this topic again, still sums up my opinions on the matter pretty much.

Hehe. Shame i must have missed that topic, don't really feel like bumping all this time later.

But, you seem to be more Nordic than i am, and i more American than you - in the political ideology.

After a few minutes of thinking, I conclude that there should just be a way for people who don't want to be taxed to, well, not be taxed, and not receive the benefits that that implies. The health care system in Canada is paid for by taxes (right?), so you don't have to have to pay for it when you need it. If I didn't want free health care, I should be allowed not to pay taxes that go to the health care system. It's like being forced to have insurance (pay every X amount every Y weeks in case you get hurt and need money / pay Z% of your income/property in case you get hurt and need money).

Considering how tax money is spent (Iraq war for example), this should be an option for every tax payer.

Well I've read through most of this and I'm disappointed in peoples understanding of civilization. When large groups of people decide to live in one area, there needs to be an overall agreed upon law. If you don't like it, you can leave and live somewhere more preferable to you. That pretty much sums it up. A government can't live without a people to fund it, and the only reason a government needs funding is to protect and support the people.

 

Now this doesn't mean welfare, which is a broken system. This means raising the basic standard of living by helping the people help themselves. Just throwing money around helps no one.

 

And because you live in an area, you're agreeing to the social contract of that government, which usually includes paying taxes. Because you've agreed to that contract it's not stealing, it's what you owe that government for providing the roads you drive on, the hospitals and schools you need for medicine and education, and for the jobs they offer if you can't find one.

 

So stop complaining about how taxes are stealing, it's not "without permission" because you live in that area and therefore must abide by their laws.

After a few minutes of thinking, I conclude that there should just be a way for people who don't want to be taxed to, well, not be taxed, and not receive the benefits that that implies. The health care system in Canada is paid for by taxes (right?), so you don't have to have to pay for it when you need it. If I didn't want free health care, I should be allowed not to pay taxes that go to the health care system. It's like being forced to have insurance (pay every X amount every Y weeks in case you get hurt and need money / pay Z% of your income/property in case you get hurt and need money).

Considering how tax money is spent (Iraq war for example), this should be an option for every tax payer.

 

The problem with picking and choosing is that from the taxman's point of view it is unfeasably awkward (probably creating additional costs) and it wouldn't be enforceable - how would you check what each individual was paying for, especially in an emergency? What happens in the case of children as well? See what I mean, that sort of system is overly difficult.

Stealing is bad.

After a few minutes of thinking, I conclude that there should just be a way for people who don't want to be taxed to, well, not be taxed, and not receive the benefits that that implies. The health care system in Canada is paid for by taxes (right?), so you don't have to have to pay for it when you need it. If I didn't want free health care, I should be allowed not to pay taxes that go to the health care system. It's like being forced to have insurance (pay every X amount every Y weeks in case you get hurt and need money / pay Z% of your income/property in case you get hurt and need money).

Considering how tax money is spent (Iraq war for example), this should be an option for every tax payer.

 

What about roads, courts, police department, army, heck, even streetlights?

How can you not use those?

 

Your idea may sound nice, but it's mostly not feasible.

After a few minutes of thinking, I conclude that there should just be a way for people who don't want to be taxed to, well, not be taxed, and not receive the benefits that that implies. The health care system in Canada is paid for by taxes (right?), so you don't have to have to pay for it when you need it. If I didn't want free health care, I should be allowed not to pay taxes that go to the health care system. It's like being forced to have insurance (pay every X amount every Y weeks in case you get hurt and need money / pay Z% of your income/property in case you get hurt and need money).

Considering how tax money is spent (Iraq war for example), this should be an option for every tax payer.

 

What about roads, courts, police department, army, heck, even streetlights?

How can you not use those?

 

Your idea may sound nice, but it's mostly not feasible.

You're right. Some are necessary. I'd need a list of taxes that are paid in the US to know what to say.

[Edit] And by that I mean you pick which taxes you want and don't want, with some that are obligatory.