Do you support taking money from the rich and giving it to those that are poor?

it means the rich buy the laws, in this case the tax loopholes

why do you think a golf course tax loophole was added to the Trump tax bill?

 

Basically yes. The details matter though. I think there should be diminishing returns in making more money (progressive taxation), but at no point should there be no significant return at all. I also would simplify the tax code so that it's not a matter of taking advantage of a bunch of tricks to pay no taxes.

I just don't buy the idea that rich people are rich because they deserve it invariably. Many people work hard, the ones that get rich just have other things going for them like unusual talent, a new idea or ideas, connections, or just luck. New ideas and talent are things to encourage, but I don't think it means they need to keep every dollar possible while others barely get by.

But in terms of "giving to the poor" it should not be done in such a way that discourages them from contributing to society how they can. And that's the risk with things like welfare. Incentives need to be appropriately aligned to encourage better outcomes for society.

 

Edited to respond to portion addressed to me.

It's called 'keeping it local'. Spending your own money on things important to you, helping those you call 'neighbors'. I'm well aware of the income spectrum, but I don't villainize those who earn a lot of money and demand they give it to other people. I do what I feel is 'the right thing' with my own money, time and labor.

At what point is my responsibility fulfilled? When I must depend on others to support me because I've paid it all out to others because they 'deserved' it? The government doesn't care, it's called a dependency factor.

EIC washes out the payment of sales tax. The idea that people should pay greater and greater amounts to support the government, which is what it really is, and what trickles down the way to those that really do need it, is greatly depleted by attrition when it gets there is not the fault of the person who contributed it in the first place. Perhaps it's the excess human baggage that the government retains that is the drain and causing the requirement for more funds....

 

List the loopholes please.

If you are self employed, you pay Class D National Insurance on your profits. Then the next year, you must half of that upfront for the next year.

If you go Limited company, you become a director and minimum wage does not apply. So you pay yourself the lower earnings limit in salary to cover the stamp on your State Pension (a little over £5,000 a year), and the company pays 20% corporation tax on the profits. You take the profit as a dividend.

But you lower the profit, so the company pays less tax. So you can charge the business a percentage of your home costs as a percentage of the size of the space. So for example, you use a spare room as an office and a large shed for storage, say that's 10% of your home size. So you can take 10% of the water, gas, electric, mortgage interest, rent etc.. cost out of the business tax free. Then you can use your car, say going to do quotes etc .. at 45p per mile up to 10,000 miles a year, so you can take £4,500 out tax free. There are other tax rules that you can follow, no loop holes there, just rules.

So you declare a legit low income, so you are entitled to claim Working and Child Tax Credit. Plus you will receive a letter to receive free prescriptions, an amount towards eye tests etc.. No loop holes there, just following the rules.

Those that whinge, don't know the tax rules and call everything loopholes.

 

CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965. It peaked at 368-to-1 in 2000.
The rich are richer. The middle class is poorer.

 

Exactly why is 1965 being used as a marker? The world changes.

It's not like the monetary pool is stagnant. If someone doesn't like what they are earning, they should do something that makes them more money, start their own business, up their value in the employment market place. Comparing one's self to other people only leads to disappointment, understand your own value.

I'm fine with what I make. Yes, there are some who make more than me, some less, all doing a similar job. I have made sure I make enough to pay my bills, sock some away for rainy days, and a really good meal every now and then. I don't care what someone else pays in taxes, they take risks I don't, have good investment information, they have different expenses than I do, supporting a couple of curtain climbers, what have you. All this worrying about other people has blinded most to what really matters.

 

'65 is an example. Do you think CEOs are 18 times more valuable to a company now then they were in '65? Executives value has remained the same but their price has gone up, but "since 1979, however, average wage growth has decelerated sharply, with the biggest declines in wage growth at the bottom and the middle." Apparently they are not of value.

Your pollyannaish comment about if they don't like their wage they should go get more is silly and simplistic. And then the subject turns to you and you suggest that is what really matters, self interest, not other people or society. That is the problem in a nut shell.

 

What has changed in society since 1965? Many things, including people who think they are owed a living, generational poverty, the boom of single parent families, lawsuits for any reason under the sun, electronic communications, 'I deserve' attitudes. How many more responsibilities do CEOs deal with on a constant basis that didn't exist in 1965?

When a company invests more into 'equipment' that accelerates production, but the employee doesn't actually provide any more effort, then wage growth will stagnate. When investors demand better returns, CEOs find better and faster means of production. It is a cycle.

When someone's skill set becomes antiquated, they aren't in demand. To make themselves worth more, they must improve their skillset. Attitude also plays a part in the value to an employer.

Nothing 'silly and simplistic' about it. You want more, make yourself worth more. There are many ways to do it, I did. Library, mentors, audit community college classes, adult night school. Now there is the internet, where you can research just about every subject under the sun. Make yourself worth more.

Self interest? No, it's not self interest. It's understanding that what someone else makes is irrelevant. No two people have the exact same experience, knowledge, capabilities and attitude. What one person makes is not going to be what another person makes, and the driving factor for some is a constant complaint that someone makes more then them. Be comfortable with yourself, and take the steps necessary to support yourself. That is not self interest.

 

Despite your confirmation bias and right-wing assumptions, that I've heard many times, people are working harder with less to show for it then ever, but that's not the point of the thread. Should we invest in a social safety net and invest in ways that would make the social safety net less necessary like subsidized daycare and job training. Things that would improve the economy and make the US more humane like socialized healthcare.

 

I prefer to actually discuss the subject, but to clarify, I am an independent, work in a company that primarily deals with entry level people, our payroll runs about 600 people per week.

So, what is the difference between subsidizing day care for those with children, and paying for other direct programs that benefit everyone eligible? Not everyone has kids, but everyone needs to eat. Job training has also been available for many years, as I previously stated, if a person is inclined to put forth a modicum of effort, they can advance themselves... libraries, adult education, community college course audits, mentors, the possibilities are endless. Even taking on more duties at their current employment, apprenticeships....

When it comes to productivity, computers and other equipment has increased productivity, without additional productivity from humans. Just look at those self-check out lanes at grocery stores.... one employee to monitor, a dozen 'registers'.... how much more effort is being put in on the human end of things? The employer pays for the equipment.

While it would be great if everybody reached their potential, some people cannot. Others can but just don't. I would much prefer to assist the former, and provide the latter with the basic needs of life, which is what currently exists in assistance programs.

 

Its not that simple. If we are talking about redistributing wealth, if we took all the money and divided it equally, it wouldn't take long for everyone to be back where they started. Rich and poor are not dollar amounts; they are habits. The poor spend what they have and then borrow. The rich sell to them and lend them money.

 

At a certain point, like when a few 'rich' own everything and everyone else are effectively their slaves, I don't think its 'stealing' to take stuff from them, but rather revolution.

I never support doing it through a governing body though. That never makes anything better. That just replaces the masters with new masters.

 

Its NOT a simple question though.

The fact is, that you are presenting an extreme gap between two points of view.

If I say no, then I am saying that there should be no tax funded government services for the poor what so ever, and that, essentially, they should be left to starve to death if needed.

If I say yes, then I will be attacked as supporter of wage theft.

 

The question is poorly formulated and I think it was intentional. Of course it is wrong to "take" money from someone to give it to someone else. It's called theft. So I voted no.

But it is desirable that the rich pay their fair share in taxes instead of benefitting from endless loopholes and actually paying less, proportionally, than the lower classes.

I am in a decent position to say so, since I'm in the top 2% of wealth so I'm not speaking out of self-interest. Actually I'm speaking against my financial interest. The Trump tax cuts saved me a big chunk of money. But do I find it fair? Not really. I try to compensate for it, by supporting worthy charities.

 

Freedom does have it's downside. I would say work hard and be content with your position in life. That is true happiness!
Income tax is the price you pay for being productive.
Welfare is the reward you get for being unproductive.

 

No but stop the monopolization and centralization of power by covering general programs that benefit everyone by making the rich pay more in tax, mainly money they make off dividends and gains.

 

Technically, income tax is just the price we pay for using state currency. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... The love of money is the root of all evil...

It used to be that bartering was less productive, comparatively, but with increasing taxes and inflation, I wonder if thats becoming no longer the case.

 

The question was, do you support taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. That is the system we have now and you support it. Trump's 1.5 trillion tax cut made the rich richer and increased the deficit. It did not change the trajectory of the economic recovery that started under Obama, but it did widen income inequality. Despite your anecdotes, subjective evidence and "feelings" the richer are richer and the middle class is poorer so the rich need to be taxed more. BTW the middle class tax cut runs out in 2025. It's Republican smoke and mirrors.

 

Like most Americans I am in favor of a more progressive tax system.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pub...wAngAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAyAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

Again like most I am opposed to specific cuts in most domestic spending programs, and I favor increased spending in several domestic spending items.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...c-support-for-reductions-in-federal-spending/

 

And as I've previously responded, noblesse oblige has limits. Where it's at now, is a touch more than it should be, but not excessive. To think that taking even more to support programs that help only specific people is a good idea, is basically the premise that becomes penalizing and that people shouldn't have to work or improve themselves to move forward and upward.

I'm middle class, and I'm not poorer, I'm doing just fine. You've provided no support for additional taxation other than penalizing those who have more. Not an iota of sustainability or justification, just penalizing people because they have more than others. Talk about basing something on 'feelings', that is exactly what you are doing.

 

Subjective evidence the middle class is doing okay: "I'm not poorer". Feelings: "penalizing people because they have more".

Let me repeat 63% of American households say they are living from paycheck to paycheck is a little more substantial subjective evidence.

Today middle class families are running at a standstill, "that means two earners must now be engaged in the labor market to maintain the same level of income once achieved by a single earner. They are working more hours for limited income growth and this has contributed to rising inequality..... making it significantly harder for families to afford key aspects of the middle-class lifestyle (e.g., childcare, healthcare, education)."

Meanwhile the rich get richer and are not expected to pay more.

 

Quoting a site that provides links to another site, which provides links to another site... if that data was that relevant, it would be clear and up front. Claiming people are living 'paycheck to paycheck' and still claiming 'middle class' leaves a multitude of questions. What is their debt load, and what is that debt? How long has it been accumulating, and for what? U.S. Personal Debt - statistics & facts | Statista

Again, comparing what someone used to make to what they make now, when not taking into consideration inflation, the cause of the inflation • United States - monthly inflation rate August 2020/21 | Statista and the needs versus wants consideration, anyone can claim they are living paycheck to paycheck which might in the absolute sense be truth, but the underlying causes define what that truth is formed from.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy to 'give to the poor' doesn't solve the issue. It is quite literally, taking from one group to give to another group who has not earned it.

The wealthy do pay more, since you claim they 'get richer'. The one's receiving money/services still do not contribute but use the services that the wealthy pay for and do not use. It is not proportional by any stretch of the imagination.

The statement that one group of people are being penalized isn't 'feelings', it is a statement of fact. You have yet to provide any justification for increasing what the 'wealthy' are being taxed other than other people want more money. That is feelings.

 

But it saves a serious amount of bloodletting.

 

Besides being 6+ years old, the data is indicative of what? Top 1%, and Bottom 50%.... there's 49% missing....