Should we Tax the rich as an economic resolve?

I wouldn't mind, because I don't have a lot of money. I'm sure people with a lot of money would disagree. If I had that much money, I wouldn't know what to do with it. I'm happy to afford a home and being able to eat every day. I mean, I can even afford buying games every once in a while! This, to me, is luxury. I want to say that I'd share if I was that rich, but let's say I'd poured my life into a business or something maybe I'd tell you something different. I'll get back to you if that ever happens.

cant we think of a better solution than taxing the rich? 

" cant we think of a better solution than taxing the rich?  "

" @the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

" cant we think of a better solution than taxing the rich?  "

How about culling the population. "

" Laffer Curve!  ...I mean Video Games! "

" @Detrian said:

" @the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

" cant we think of a better solution than taxing the rich?  "

How about culling the population. "

How about a balanced budget? Seriously, we need to get my Mom out in the government. She would balance that shit like nobody's business...  "

Increasing the level of taxation on higher income earners is one step in many, it is however necessary.  I'm Australian, I pay more percentage wise in tax than the top tax bracket in the US... and I'm not even at the top.  You people need to learn that taxes are a necessary evil, the cost of living in a successful western society.  It completely blows my mind when I see low income earners in the US actively supporting the idea of keeping the wealthy's taxes to a minimum, it's working against their own benefit.

should we? yes. could we? neeeever gonna happen.

Taxing the rich more is insane, this is America and in a country were people are encouraged to make something of themselves, penalizing people who have become successful is ridiculous.i have the best and  simplest solution to all the tax problems in America, and im going to give it you all for free, ready its very simple. The same taxes for everyone across the board no matter who you are or how much you make. 
Example = Tax for every single person in America is 10% (agian no matter how much you make) so someone who makes $1,000 a week pays 10% tax and someone who makes $15,000 also pays 10% tax. The person who is making more is technically paying more but under the same percentage based on his paycheck.
See simple and nobody can complain because everyone is being treated equally.

I'm not in that top 2%, so yeah it makes sense to tax them more.
 
If I was rich I might have a different outcome though,just because I have a lot of money doesn't mean I didn't work hard for it.
 
 So its hard to find the proper balance I guess, I think the trick might be to not tax the people themselves more, but tax their work income or business profits more. I think if its slightly less personal then it becomes less noticeable and therefore less likely to piss them off.  Like if you are making $500,000 a year and you just happen to get an extra 2% tax on each paycheck, you probably won't notice it that much. 
 
Dunno, just gotta trick the rich people a bit. A small tax increase won't really affect them much but will generate a lot of extra money.
 
 
------------------
 
 
Another answer: Don't increase taxes at all for anybody, instead restructure government spending to free up some of the tens of millions of wasted dollars every year.
 
It costs $20million dollars a year to keep the penny in circulation. Why don't we just fucking toss 'em  and maybe nickels too, and then just have all prices end in 0. Huge amount of money freed up, plus much easier for everyone as a result. Australia already does this.

What this commie talk???? Im no rich dude but if we are to believe that every one is equal , everyone must be taxed the same as the others , no matter how much or how less you have

@SolidOcelot:
I think a sliding scale is acceptable since 1% of a fairly wealthy person's income is often times less important to their survival than 1% of a poor person's income is to theirs. 
However, I also feel like the tax rates applied here in Europe, where people with just 25000€/year incomes get taxed 40% are outrageous. 
In the case of America you still have that multi-trilion dollar deficit to concern yourself with. 

My solution would be very simple. No country would be allowed to have a deficit. If it did, that deficit would be immediatly deducted from the next avvailable source of revenue the state has. 
This is tricky since government needs to borrow money from the fed or the european central bank. Which leads me to step two. The extinction of the fed and the appropriation of the responsability for money policies by the government.

"Increasing the level of taxation on higher income earners is one step in many, it is however necessary.  I'm Australian, I pay more percentage wise in tax than the top tax bracket in the US... and I'm not even at the top.  You people need to learn that taxes are a necessary evil, the cost of living in a successful western society.  It completely blows my mind when I see low income earners in the US actively supporting the idea of keeping the wealthy's taxes to a minimum, it's working against their own benefit. "

The really rich people know how to minimize taxes. So raising them will do fuck all.
There is an enormous industry that revolves around minimizing taxes for people who have money, I should know, I work in it.
 
Edit: Oh and also it seems the majority of people in this thread have no real understanding of modern day economics and taxation  systems.
LOL at everyone being taxed the same.

How about we tax everyone at a flat 20%. No Exceptions. Everyone Pays 20%.

" Let's be honest, if you're a billionaire, you're not going to be any less-off with a couple million gone.   Example: You have 10 billion dollars sitting in a pot. Whenever you invest it or spend it on something, you take the money from the top of the pot and use it. Since you have soooooo much money, you're never gonna use the money at the bottom of the pot, because you'll never get there. Make sense? So why not tax the insanely rich a little more.  "

It depends. In this hypothetical situation that will never EVER happen, am I one of the rich or one of the poor? If I'm one of the poor, then fuck ya screw money bags I need me some money. If however I am one of the rich, then fuck off you filthy scum and leave my money alone. HISSSSS!!!!1!

That's how it works in Canada, and every person on here who claims this is a good idea would be on the other side of the argument if they were rich.

Yes because I'm not rich.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this logic.

" How about we tax everyone at a flat 20%. No Exceptions. Everyone Pays 20%. "

---   Another answer: Don't increase taxes at all for anybody, instead restructure government spending to free up some of the tens of millions of wasted dollars every year.  It costs $20million dollars a year to keep the penny in circulation. Why don't we just fucking toss 'em  and maybe nickels too, and then just have all prices end in 0. Huge amount of money freed up, plus much easier for everyone as a result. Australia already does this. "

 if it increases America will be destroyed. "

I think everyone should be taxed based on what they spend, and nothing else. People wouldn't be penalized for their success, but for how selfishly they used their success. That way, a rich guy that lives in a regular house and only lives on what he needs, giving the rest to charity/using it to help the community is taxed less than the rich guy buying a fleet of sports cars and living in a huge mansion and spending everything on himself. I think the problem with universally taxing everyone that makes more is that in some cases, they deserve the money they worked for.

" @Korwin said:

"Increasing the level of taxation on higher income earners is one step in many, it is however necessary.  I'm Australian, I pay more percentage wise in tax than the top tax bracket in the US... and I'm not even at the top.  You people need to learn that taxes are a necessary evil, the cost of living in a successful western society.  It completely blows my mind when I see low income earners in the US actively supporting the idea of keeping the wealthy's taxes to a minimum, it's working against their own benefit. "

You shouldn't be surprised.  There are a lot of stupid people here. "

if we tax the rich so heavily, arent people going to stop being rich then?

yes,  
 
and make tax evasion a castrated offence 

" I think everyone should be taxed based on what they spend, and nothing else. People wouldn't be penalized for their success, but for how selfishly they used their success. That way, a rich guy that lives in a regular house and only lives on what he needs, giving the rest to charity/using it to help the community is taxed less than the rich guy buying a fleet of sports cars and living in a huge mansion and spending everything on himself. I think the problem with universally taxing everyone that makes more is that in some cases, they deserve the money they worked for. "

i don't think so. they get taxed more already. maybe if you were insanely rich that you don't know what to do with the money.

" @cjmabry said:

" Let's be honest, if you're a billionaire, you're not going to be any less-off with a couple million gone.   Example: You have 10 billion dollars sitting in a pot. Whenever you invest it or spend it on something, you take the money from the top of the pot and use it. Since you have soooooo much money, you're never gonna use the money at the bottom of the pot, because you'll never get there. Make sense? So why not tax the insanely rich a little more.  "

 Let's punish the successful. Fantastic idea! They should pay for my education and my health care, my car, my home, and anything else I think I'm entitled to.  I can sit at home playing my Xbox. "

" @DeeGee said:

" @beej said:

" This is at the very least untrue depending on what values we choose to believe in. Let's presupose for a second that we're in america alright? Our democracy is founded on notions of freedom. However extreme poverty creates serious concerns for freedom, a person who has to spend their entire life trying to ensure basic necessities is hardly free to engage in what we consider to be basic rights (like education for example) look at the drop out rates in inner city high schools. Thus our commitment to freedom means that we may have to be in conflict with our other values (like not involving ourselves in other peoples lives) Thus it seems like our fundamental requirement to uphold freedom obligates us to tax the rich more in order to ensure basic necessities.  Another reason that I can throw out off the top of my head is that it's a basic belief that everyone in America gets to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you get where you are by working hard. (I would argue that this is less true, but let's assume it's a truism for a second, and that therefore we value hard work)  This valuing of hard work seems to cause problems once again when it comes to extreme poverty, ignoring my claims that poverty prevents many individuals from self realizing, we can both agree that it can force an individual to have to work much harder than someone born into a life of privilege. Thus one persons work is valued less than another persons. If we want to claim that we value the work of everyone then we have to guarantee equal starting positions in life to an extent, therefore taxing the rich more is justifiable.  These are just two reasons I can put down right now.  "

You just described communism. Freedom is making people pay to support the poor? Freedom is everybody works equally and gets equal rewards? No, not at all. Freedom is exactly the opposite of everything you just said. Someone who has to spend their entire life trying to ensure basic necessitate is very free, FORCING rich people to pay for their education is not freedom at all. A truly free America will let a poor person die in the streets, because nobody is entitled to help anyone but themselves. Which isn't good, of course not. But that's what you get for being free. "

Except that within our Declaration of Independence it is stated that you have three inalienable rights, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."  In fact, earlier versions included protections of properties, but Franklin believed property should be taxed to ensure the other three for all.  So I would say I disagree with your sentiment in a cold, ruthless America. "

Most of them earned it, they shouldn't be punished for being successful. 

" @l4wd0g said:

" @cjmabry said:

" Let's be honest, if you're a billionaire, you're not going to be any less-off with a couple million gone.   Example: You have 10 billion dollars sitting in a pot. Whenever you invest it or spend it on something, you take the money from the top of the pot and use it. Since you have soooooo much money, you're never gonna use the money at the bottom of the pot, because you'll never get there. Make sense? So why not tax the insanely rich a little more.  "

 Let's punish the successful. Fantastic idea! They should pay for my education and my health care, my car, my home, and anything else I think I'm entitled to.  I can sit at home playing my Xbox. "

If that's how you see it, then fine. But the top 2% won't ever touch most of their money. They have millions of dollars that'll never be used, while some families literally have nothing. But it's such a big deal to use that money that would have never seen the light of day otherwise to help some poverty ridden people.  Society's thinking is way messed up imo. People think it's fine for other's to have loads of money that they'll never use, while so many people live in poverty. "

" @cjmabry said:

" @l4wd0g said:

" @cjmabry said:

" Let's be honest, if you're a billionaire, you're not going to be any less-off with a couple million gone.   Example: You have 10 billion dollars sitting in a pot. Whenever you invest it or spend it on something, you take the money from the top of the pot and use it. Since you have soooooo much money, you're never gonna use the money at the bottom of the pot, because you'll never get there. Make sense? So why not tax the insanely rich a little more.  "

 Let's punish the successful. Fantastic idea! They should pay for my education and my health care, my car, my home, and anything else I think I'm entitled to.  I can sit at home playing my Xbox. "

If that's how you see it, then fine. But the top 2% won't ever touch most of their money. They have millions of dollars that'll never be used, while some families literally have nothing. But it's such a big deal to use that money that would have never seen the light of day otherwise to help some poverty ridden people.  Society's thinking is way messed up imo. People think it's fine for other's to have loads of money that they'll never use, while so many people live in poverty. "

I understand, but the problem with that is that those you want to take more are the one who are giving sizable donations (millions of dollars) to charities every year. Will they continue to donate? Will they stay citizens if we make them pay more? There are serious questions when you talk about rasing people's taxes.  "

Nope, that is called stealing

" @l4wd0g said:

" How about we tax everyone at a flat 20%. No Exceptions. Everyone Pays 20%. "

Because 20% is enough to make some people unable to afford a good standard of living you chimp. This is why the rich pay more, cause sending kids to school and eating at the same time doesn't make the family bankrupt. "

" @Detrian said:

" @l4wd0g said:

" How about we tax everyone at a flat 20%. No Exceptions. Everyone Pays 20%. "

Because 20% is enough to make some people unable to afford a good standard of living you chimp. This is why the rich pay more, cause sending kids to school and eating at the same time doesn't make the family bankrupt. "

So what is a "good standard of living?" Just curious. It's a nice little emotion bearing phrase, but it doesn't really mean anything. Now let me explain what I mean. The words "Good," and "Standard" means change with each reader. My good standard of living is very different than yours. It's like what a politician says, " I believe in family values." Great  I'm sure Charles Manson has "family values," but they aren't my family values. Makes sense?    Education is free. Until you reach college then you have to make financial choices: Join the military, take out student loans, work and attend classes.    Life is all about choices isn't? You can chose how you spend you money. You don't need: A car, to live alone, have an Xbox, have a huge TV, have kids that you can't afford.    I survived on $9,000 a year while going to college. I had roommates, I couldn't eat out, I couldn't have Starbucks, I couldn't have a monster TV. But, I could eat, I could pay for school, and I could drive a car with insurance.   Thanks for calling me a chimp though, personal attacks always a great way of proving your point. "

Here in Canada the poor get taxed way less than us well to do types. I'm talking store clerks and broom pushers and shelf stockers. Meanwhile I work my ass off in the freezing cold and have to go to school to advance myself in the biz, and I'm losing half my paycheck. So what do I do?
 
I only work enough hours per year to stay barely just below the poverty line. I get a huge amount of my income taxes back, and then I sit around and collect unemployment insurance for 8 months.
Fuck you, Canadian government! I win!

There aren't enough rich people for that to be the solution.

" There aren't enough rich people for that to be the solution. "

It's not quite so simple as some people are putting it as "they earned it, they deserve every penny". As a society we're all in it together, if there exists extremes of wealth and poverty then it is to the detriment of everyone. A person in extreme poverty will commit crime or end their lives (the latter reducing capital gain for the country and wasting all previous investments on that person). A person with extreme wealth will sequester most of that wealth from the economy and also hold unhealthy amounts of power over the lives of other people (see the God-Kings of Egypt or the nobility prior to the French Revolution).  
 
Additionally, a bit of a humanitarian aspect must be considered: are a person born into a homeless shelter and a person born into a privileged family, both with equal intelligence, equally likely to become successful? The answer is sadly, no. Did either of them have the choice of which socioeconomic position they'd be born into, or the sequence of their DNA? Also no. Life is not fair and nature is cruel, so as humans, measures should be taken such that the less fortunate can be helped by the more fortunate, otherwise we are no better than feral animals. 

The thing with capitalism is that it's only reserved for a select few to gain extreeme riches. As with most governments, there will continue to be a ''higher class''; those that run shit, and leave all the menial work to the poor- whatever floats your boat man, but we all saw what the fucking banks did to the world...

" @l4wd0g said:

" @Detrian said:

" @l4wd0g said:

" How about we tax everyone at a flat 20%. No Exceptions. Everyone Pays 20%. "

Because 20% is enough to make some people unable to afford a good standard of living you chimp. This is why the rich pay more, cause sending kids to school and eating at the same time doesn't make the family bankrupt. "

So what is a "good standard of living?" Just curious. It's a nice little emotion bearing phrase, but it doesn't really mean anything. Now let me explain what I mean. The words "Good," and "Standard" means change with each reader. My good standard of living is very different than yours. It's like what a politician says, " I believe in family values." Great  I'm sure Charles Manson has "family values," but they aren't my family values. Makes sense?    Education is free. Until you reach college then you have to make financial choices: Join the military, take out student loans, work and attend classes.    Life is all about choices isn't? You can chose how you spend you money. You don't need: A car, to live alone, have an Xbox, have a huge TV, have kids that you can't afford.    I survived on $9,000 a year while going to college. I had roommates, I couldn't eat out, I couldn't have Starbucks, I couldn't have a monster TV. But, I could eat, I could pay for school, and I could drive a car with insurance.   Thanks for calling me a chimp though, personal attacks always a great way of proving your point. "

The standard of living has a real, widely accepted definition you faux intellectual. Look it up and maybe I'll stop calling you names when you have an opinion based on more than your sob story. "