"Heavily tax the rich, that'll solve everything".

TheConductor

There are plenty of people out there who started with nothing, started small businesses that grew. People who created things that ended up being worth a lot of money.

There are people who have exploited others for their own gain and even committed crimes to get money.

There are people who just got lucky.

Only ONE group of these people are bad and don't deserve a single penny.

I do feel however, that there should be a flat percentage for taxes for everybody (let's say, 20%) and then an extra 2% on every £1,000 above £20,000. Am I making sense?

Chagen

I don't know about Pounds as well as Dollars, but that seems reasonable.

Not like the "make the rich pay 90% of their income" stuff I've heard.

GLORIOUSLeader

Tnu1138

From a Topic on Ron Paul 2012

The fact that he supports the unpopular theories doesn't mean he doesn't
know ecconomics. Classic liberalism and Austrian school are pushed
aside now but there are still scientists who support it. And I mean real
ones, not some random crackpots. We've made interventionism and
Keynessianism into a dogma, while it's not the only way.

ninjaclown

GOP kept pushing tax cuts for the rich right up to the Bush era. Is the country all better yet?

(No)

CommandoDude

Chagen. What do you have against strawmen?

Tnu1138

no because they're doing it wrong. tax cuts need to be uniform remember Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1.

Chagen

Commando: I've heard that suggested by people in OTC.

Also, another objection:

If you tax the rich heavily, you'll eventually tax them to a lower economic class.

Which means that there wont be any rich people left to tax. Which means that you have to tax the middle class.

Which nullifies the reason for taxing the rich in the first place

CommandoDude

^ The idea of taxing the rich into poverty is absurd. They collectively own trillions and personally make millions every day.

Seriously Chagen. /facepalm

In the 50's rich people had a 90%ish tax rate and they didn't become homeless bums.

ninjaclown

Yes, that'll happen... IF THE TAXES ARE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

CommandoDude

Taxes?

100%?!

WHAT THE FU-*BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM*

All Nines

If I may make a suggestion to the people in this thread: find something better to do. Arguing with Chagen doesn't get anyone anywhere productive, least of all him.

Well, that's slightly hypocritical of me, as I responded before. But I feel that this thread is proof enough that he isn't listening to me anyway, so I shouldn't bother. And I still think it's good advice.

Stormtroper

Let's see what you've been doing wrong when making threads, Chagen. Though it contains counter-arguments, this is not meant a guide as to why taxing the rich is a good idea, but a how to not post:

This is always suggested by middle-class people who are pissed that others actually worked and gained wealth through business. Shut the fuck up, maybe you should have payed attention in school you lazy piece of shit.

Poisoning the well. Unnecessarily antagonistic.

Life isn't fair and some people have it better than others.

Deal with it, instead of trying to make a socialiast utopia.

Nobody had made that point (yet). Don't assume/predict your opponents' arguments like that. Don't be condescending while doing so.

Except that when equality is forced, we get stuff like the Soviet Union. Who only had to kill 70 Million people to prove how communism didn't work.

Appealing to extremes.

Because the opposite, communism, totally works, amirite?

False dichotomy.

Commando: Life sucks and isn't fair.

Deal with it. The world isn't a socialist utopia where everyond holds hands and is the same. There will always be economic inequality.

Here you ignored snowbull's post about trying to make things fairer.

Ad Hominem? Really?

Don't use that tone when you do the same thing in the OP. It's hypocritical.

Why does everyone here hate money?

Many questions fallacy.

Am I the only Materialistic person on this fora?

Stop assuming about your opponents like that. There's a myriad of reasons to disagree, and one that implies they aren't materialistic didn't even come up.

TheConductor

£1 is worth roughly $1.60.

And yes, I agree expecting anyone to pay 90% of their income is preposterousness. 

My idea would basically be this;

Earners on £10,000 a year would pay 5% tax. £500 a year doesn't seem so awful does it?

Earners between £11-19k a year would be expected to pay 15% tax. At most they'd be paying £2,850.

Earners on £20,000 would pay 20% tax, £4,000 a year.

Earners who earn above that would be expected to pay extra tax. 2% for every £1,00. 6% for every £10,000. and so on

I'm not a mathematician or an economist so there may well be a major flaw  in this system but still.

Chagen

So I guess this is another lie my dad told me.

DonZabu

^^ Except £10,000 (or about $10,000, to be simplistic) isn't a livable wage. Under your system, what would the average US income of $50,000 a year be expected to pay?

ninjaclown

With your dad, I'm not surprised.

All Nines

^^^ You still listen to your dad?

TheConductor

@Chagen; What lie would that be, I am honestly confused.

@Zabu: Yes, £10,000 isn't a livable wage. I've also found that most people who are earning that don't live alone any way. Usually they are still Dependant on someone else.

As for what someone on £50k would be expected to pay.

They'd be expected to pay the basic 20%, so £10,000. Plus an extra 6% on each of the extra £10ks they earn. So, £1800.

Over all they'd be expected to pay £11,800 a year. 

JG_Punk

Chagen's like that lady who thought DNA Testing was bad because now a lady can no longer go up to the white guy she slept with, present him an asian baby and say "this baby is yours, you better be responsible for it."

RedEyedAbyss

Tell me Chagen, if you were rich, what would you do with the extra money?

JG_Punk

^ Give it all to his redneck dad who'd spend it on whisky and hookers.

Seriously Paris Hilton hasn't worked a day in her life.

Stormtroper

^^^^ Without a cap, it'd come to the point where a higher income makes you earn less money after considering taxes.

IanExMachina

I'd say the taxes would obviously have to cover the government spending so declaring a flat tax rate at 10k wouldn't be that useful.

(Unless you are using the numbers for show.)

TheConductor

^ The numbers were just for show, just the easiest ones I can calculate.

Hatter

I'm sick of the idea that because there's a gap between rich and poor, that somehow means that the poor are getting poorer. That's bullshit and everyone knows it.

The standard of living is higher than it's ever been. Crime has been steadily decreasing since the eighties. People are having fewer children and living longer lives. The system fucking works.

RedEyedAbyss

Easy to say when you're not poor.

http://playspent.org/

ninjaclown

The system does work, but what you said has nothing to do with money. As I supporter of Capitalism, even I can see your system is stagnating.

Hatter

Because flash games and hypothetical situations prove that the poor have no benefits and we're heading towards a dystopian future.

RedEyedAbyss

You are putting words in my mouth.