Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
It's progressive in the US, but not as progressive as ours, so the top bracket pays more rate-wise than the lower brackets. But when you factor in the various exemptions, the lower end pays no taxes at all. So, I fail to see the validity of the argument. Because someone making $250K can afford to send their kids to university is not a reason to jack the tax rate for them (and them alone).
P.S. To flip it on its head, a whole bunch of banks, and Fannie and Freddie thought the non-tax-paying bottom end should get mortgages to buy houses, which is a large reason for the current mess. Why not say, if you can own a house, you can pay taxes? Same logic.
|
Ok, well the rate thing was the thing I was asking about to begin with. As I said, I wasn't sure if it was progressive like ours, less progressive, or more or less flat. I was just saying that if it was flat, or if the higher income earners did pay less percentage wise (loophole or not), that would be what a lot of the posters were asking about and or arguing against.
As for exemptions, and paying little to no taxes, you are talking about the lowest of the low classes. Not middle class, heck, probably not even lower middle class. As well, as I explained a little higher up, the poor do get taxed anyway. Through fees associated with living and going to work and such which drain a much larger percentage of their income, than a person in a better financial position.
I'm not saying that the tax should be jacked up on those making over 250,000, just that care should be taken that it is at least the same percentage. That the spirit of the idea of people paying their fair share is not lost. As far as the comment about advantages goes, I meant simply that those in better financial positions have the advantages which allow them to stay in their position or improve it, while those in worse financial positions do not have such luxuries. In fact, it's often a battle not to slip lower. No, no one should be punished for being able to send their children to university, but care should be taken that there is a way out for those who cannot. Which is probably the crux of the whole argument, considering it will be the poor who pay for it more in the face of massive spending cuts. They will lose more opportunity and freedom. Simply because they cannot afford to lose any possible 'advantages' or exemptions they have by being in their situation
I guess it all depends on how you look at who has money and how you think they got it. Now I know the prevailing belief in America is that if you work hard, and pursue the American dream, you will be rewarded and you will make it to that top 2%. However, we'd all have to be very naive to believe that. Yes hard work is a big factor, probably the most important factor, but it's nowhere near the defining factor. So much has to do with situation and dumb luck. There are people who just never get the shot, whether it be society problems, family problems, health problems, whatever. As well, we all know of people who got to the top 2% just because of the situation they were born into, the family they were born into, the talents, money, or luck they were born into.
From a national economic standpoint, it would be stupid to raise the taxes on the poorest anyway. I'm not talking about the middle class, but the poorer classes. Not only would you not make very much, but you would cause greater problems. Need for more programs would increase, crime would probably increase, etc. So while it's nice to say it should be fair across the board, it really only works to go for the money from the people who can afford it.
In a perfect world, where everything was fair, we could have a flat tax rate. But that would be a world where bad things didn't happen to good people and everyone got paid exactly what they were worth. That doesn't happen. Until then, we have to make it easier on the lower classes. And I guess, in a roundabout way, even though it's not aimed that way, that makes it a little 'tougher' on the richer classes.
But when I say tougher, they still have it easier than the lower classes. You don't think anyone making 24,000/yr wouldn't take 250,000 even if they had to pay 5% more tax? Or realisitcally 15% more? 30% more?
Yeah paying for someone else doesn't seem fair, and it's definitely not the 'American Way,' but logically it makes the most sense, and it helps those paying as well. In societies that take care of their poor there is less crime fewer societal problems, etc.
Apologize for going a bit in a circle there, but I think you know what I'm trying to say. If we're dealing in absolutes I don't know what the solution is. It's probably going to be a lot of things from looking at tax policy, to making important cuts in bloated areas, to doing their best to revamp the government or at least the culture of combatitiveness it has taken in the last 15 years or so.
But if we're talking in figuratives and ideals, I don't think there is really anything wrong in asking the top 2% to contribute a little bit more. Whether it's closing some loopholes, changing the tax rate, or some other more inventive idea.
EDIT: Oh, and about Fanny and Freddie, well I can't disagree that there was some serious irresponsibility on many of the would be home owners. But I would argue the greater responsibility was still on the banks. 1. they knew the mortgages had a high risk of failure, and they thought the could beat the system by increasing the customers and leveaging the risk. And of course all the craziness that happened after that. There were about 4 separate bad ideas in the whole plan and it just got worse as you went along. They were supposed to know better. The people on the bottom just wanted to own a house. And if you give someone that chance, who normally doesn't have it, they will take it.
Again, it's part of the desperation in being poor. On having that thumb on you your entire life. There is a good portion of the public that can't even imagine that. And that's probably why they get so riled up about a small tax increase.