Question to Socialists: Would 10% taxes on all income be enough to fund adequate (in your view) social programs? There would still be taxes on top of that for all the ordinary things, but 10% of all income would be directed towards socialist spending. Would that be enough? Have you sat down and done some basic calculations? What percent would be enough?
This is somewhat related to Andrew Yang's (Democrat, Presidential candidate for 2020) value added tax on the tech companies who usually get away with paying $0 tax despite record earnings. He wants to tax them at 10%. I don't think the poor could pay near anything if ALL income is taxed at 10%.
I don't know but I would imagine it either goes into R&D or expanding their HQ, or, in the case of Amazon, creating a second HQ somewhere in the country.
40% of working Americans earn less than $15.00 per hour they should pay no tax federal state or local taxes.They will still have to pay sales tax on anything they purchase that's taxable as well as real estate tax if they own a home or even if they rent as the rent will include taxes.First $31,200 tax free then scale it up from there.Top rate 40% on those earning over $5 million.
On a global scale, a similar percentage on only the 200 richest people in the world will be enough to support basic needs worldwide. How insignificant is that amount for those rich people? They spend much less a year on their personal conveniences, and they will ironically recover what was taken easily through financial speculation and as the basic needs are used to pay for services and goods that their businesses provide.
I have come to the conclusion that The VAT tax Will be Paid for by the consumer. Andrew Yang is proposing a UBI of $1000 a month to every citizen payed for with a 10% vat tax. I have heard rumors that Yang is starting to Discuss consolidating the existing welfare system. In other words, we're gonna cut the social programs in the Yang presidency.
And loss carryovers, losses incurred for instance the first three years as they were starting up. And yes Amazon built a new distribution hub in the city next door last year. About 100 jobs. The cost to do so is expensed against profits. And contrary to what many believe Amazon is not all that profitable. From 2014 "Amazon has never paid a dividend. But not because the company is amassing a giant hoard of cash, like Apple (Nasdaq:AAPL) famously does. Even today, having turned the corner, Amazon isn’t really that profitable in relation to its revenue. Its profit margin for the last quarter was less than 1%. Retail profit margins are traditionally lower than those in other industries, but still, a sub-1% margin is remarkable. Why is it so low, and is this by design?" https://www.investopedia.com/stock-...kes-money-no-one-cares-amzn-aapl-wag-azo.aspx
The rate should be different for different income classes. As for socialist spending...they should start with universal health care...then move on from there.
A better question I'd like to ask @kazenatsu If Socialists could pay for health care and education instead of paying for prisons and executions, wouldn't that be enough to cover the costs?
Define income. It is not a trivial question since I already pay a lower percentage on capital gains and nothing on tax free bonds and if I die my money will go to my heirs on a stepped up tax basis. And now of course we have the Roth IRA where the gains are never taxed. The current system is already stacked to benefit the rich and we won't even bother to get into the more obscure tax dodges that are available. There really is a reason that more and more money keeps accruing at the top.
It's time to expand your awareness of the possibilities. Here is a well-researched proposal for an above-poverty Job Guarantee, without raising taxes (from Prof. Randall Wray, of the Levy Econ0omics Institute at Bard College, N.Y.). http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_2018_3.pdf 7 pages, highly recommended.
The United States currently spends about $4 trillion on public education, health care, and anti poverty programs, including Social Security. So no it wouldn't
Sure they can. Just takes a bit of manuverong which we all know: https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/too-rich-roth-do/
Something wrong with working for your money? And you just hire wealth managers who do it all for you.